Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin, an historical study of the fifth chapter of Daniel"

See other formats

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin 
John Dyneley Prince 


f . 







Presented to the Board of University Studies of the Johns Hopkins University 
for the Degree of Doctor of. Philosophy 









to ilu- l>o;inl of t*ni v<Tsit y Studies of (In- Johns Hopkins 
Uiiiv(.-rsitv lor tin- I )(:;!(. ,,i Doctor of 




The following dissertation is an attempt to bring forward and empha- 
size whatever germs of historical truth there may lurk in the fifth 
chapter of the much disputed Book of Daniel. The keen knife of 
modern criticism, in the demonstration of the untenable character 
of the old orthodox position regarding the book, has so dissected and 
torn the work asunder, that whatever of truth there might be in it is 
now liable to be overlooked in tin- search for and exposition of the 
many unquestionable historical errors. 

It seems therefore that the time has come, without denying the un- 
doubted late origin of the Hook of Daniel, to lay stress on the few 
grains of true history which the Maccabawu author has succeeded in 
gathering from the rrring traditions of his time. 

The writer of this dissertation, accordingly, offers a suggestion 
towards the elucidation of the mysterious sentence Ch. v. 25. and has 
endeavoured to show that it is not absolutely necessary to consider t his 
part of Daniel a pure invention of the author, but that it is possible to 
detect even here an echo of real history. Abstracts of this dissertation 
have been published in the .fnhnx //M/*/, 1 /'//* ( T n/r. < 'in-Hltirx. No. !s. /,. 
94 ; and in the Proceed iny* offltr Anu-i-inm Oriental ,SW/V///, April, 1892, 
pp. clxxxii-clxxxix. 

The writer takes this opportunity to express his gratitude to Professor 
Paul Haupt for many kindnesses and especially for the constant guid- 
ance and personal attention which have been given him in his work 
at the Johns Hopkins University. 

BALTIMOKK, February. 

N i:\\ II A \ KN, CONN. 



Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the story of the 
feast of Belshazzar and the mysterious writing which appeared 
as a warning to the last king of Babylon. The enigmatical 
sentence has always been considered one of the most obscure 
of the many difficult scriptural passages which have awakened 
the interest and baffled the ingenuity of scholars. Indeed, up 
to the present decade no really satisfactory explanation of the 
phrase has been attained. Even if it be admitted that the 
events described in the fifth chapter of Daniel actually oc- 
curred, there are still two difficulties presented by the Biblical 
record; first, the true meaning of the sentence, and second, 
the reason why the writing was unintelligible to the hierogram- 

The ancient writers evidently regarded the three words Mene, 
Tekcl and /Y/v.v' of ver>es *K\. "21 and 28 as substantives. 
Josephus (A?ttt., x. 11, '>\) <. y., translates them by a/otfl/zo?, 
crrafl/xo?, tfXaoT-ta, and .Jerome by 'numeriis, appensio, divisio." 

Among the more modern scholars the opinion has been 
advanced that frOE and ^pjl are preterites of the verbs 
'to count' and ^pH 'to weigh,' respectively, and that p 
the last word of the phrase, is a plural participle of D*)B 'to 
divide.' The translation for verse 25 was accordingly sug- 
gested, ' numeravit, numeravit, appendit et dividunt.' 2 

J. D. Michaelis, c Daniel ' p. 51, suggested reading K3D KJJD 
" Der Ziihlende (God) hat gezjihlt," while Dereser and 
Bertholdt, (' Daniel'^. 389) following Theodotion and the Vul- 
gate rejected one fcOp as an error of the copyist, who, accord- 
ing to their idea, may have written the word twice. Bertholdt 

1 Both the Greek and Latin translations have only the three words 
' Mane, Thekel, Phares' in verse 25. See below, Appendix II, note 1, to 
verse 25. 

2 See Buxtorf, 'Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbinicum,' 
col. 2623. 


regarded the three words as participles, translating " Geziihlt 
ist es, gewogen ist es, getheilt ist es." This opinion which 
was followed with certain modifications by almost all the 
subsequent critics 3 was never a satisfactory explanation, because, 
while it may be possible to regard NJD as a passive participle, 
the form of the other words TpH and D*)3 has always pre- 
sented a difficulty. 

The remark of Abr. Geiger in an explanation of a Mishnic 
passage in the Ztschr. der deutschen mor genii uulixcl ten Gesell- 
sckaft, xxi. (1867) p. 46T/. that the Tosephta regarded D15 in 
the phrase D^DI f"OD POO , as ' a half-mina,' should have given 
a clue to the true meaning of the mysterious sentence. No 
one however seems to have had a similar idea until of late 
years, when an entirely new light was thrown on the interpreta- 
tion of the passage by the distinguished French archaeologist 
M. Clermont-Ganneau, who, in 1886, published in the Jour- 
nal Asiatique (Serie viii. vol. I. pp. 36^.) an article entitled 
4 Mane, Thecel, Phares et le festin de Balthasar,' which appeared 
in an English translation in Hebra/ica, iii. pp. 87-102. Gan- 
neau calls attention to the fact that the interpretation attributed 
to Daniel does not agree rigorously with the prophet's deci- 
pherment of the inscription, i. e., that the interpretation given 
by the author in vv. 26, 27, 28, is based only on the three 
words Mene, Tekel and 2*eres 9 the plural form of the latter 
, which appears in v. 25 preceded by the conjunc- 

3 Compare among others, Havernick, 'Daniel,' 1832, p. 195, who 
explained the form /pH as being caused by analogy with N^lp ; 
Lengerke, * Daniel,' 1835, pp. 261, 262, who explains the three words 
as participles analogous in form to the fictitious form *"ltN ("1*?N) 
in chap. ii. 5, 8 : and Hitzig, ' Daniel,' 1850, p. 84, who regarded 
7pfl as a middle pronunciation between /^pfi and /pfi (from 

7/p) containing the double meaning ' thou art weighed' and 'found 
too light,' a rather fanciful supposition which was objected to l>y 
Kranichfeld, 'Daniel,' 1868, p. 226. The latter considered ^pJl not 
as a pure passive participle, but as a sort of passive preterite which 
passed to an intransitive. 7*pJl becoming ^pH by assonance with 
&OO (C/. also Keil, 'Daniel.' />. l, r s, who translated ver>. 
" (irxahlt, gc/.aldt. gi'xvo^-n und in St iiclce.") 

til MI ") being disregarded. This difference between the text as 
read and the explanation, he thought could only be explaine4 
by the' suj)[)osition that the Biblical author had to do with a 
set traditional phrase, from which it was necessary to bring 
out a certain interpretation adapted t<> the circumstances of the 

Ganneau then proceeds to explain his important discovery 
which gives a new key to the meaning of the mysterious words. 
During an epigraphic mission to the British Museum in 1 S 7\ 
he found that the three letters on certain half mina-weights, 
which had previously been read uHp were in reality J2H3 = 
j>tff,/H= half. As tlu 1 weight hearing the inscription was iMjual 
to that of half of a light mina, he concluded that fcH3 must 
mean ' half -mina.' This discovery led him to decide that on 
the- set of Xinevitic weigliN, engraved with letters approaching 
in form to the Arannean character.^, the three words, POD = 
mina,' ^pfi = 'shekel' and t!'"l3 = * half mina/ were to be 
found, and that these three names might correspond to the 
three chief words of the sentence in the fifth chapter of Daniel. 
Concluding then that the mysterious sentence may contain 
nanie.s of weights, he proceeds to apply this theory to the inter- 
pretation of the phrase, suggesting a number of conjectural 
translations for the entire sentence, no <>ne of which throws 
any >atisfactory light on the meaning. Reading f'D*)? as a 
dual form (pp")3X he proposes, e. </., to transfer the 1 from 
j'DIGI to ^pfl, reading V?pfl , imperative of ^pfl k to weigh/ 
and to tran>late 'for every mina wei^h two paras' or k a mina 
i> a mina, weigh two para>': <>r. regarding the verb as a 
pn-terite, 'they have weighed two paras,' etc., (see /A ///v/,Vv/, 
iii. .\<>. _?, i*i>. 1>0 ff.} The general conclusion at which he 
arrived was that w the two extreme and essential terms of the 
phrase in Daniel are two names of weights, of which one is 
double the other, placed in relation by a third middle term, 
which is either a third name of weight (that of shekel) or the 
verb 'to weigh/ from which the name of shekel is derived. 

This attempt of (lanneau was followed by an admirable 
paper published in the Zrilw/u-tft fur Asxijrioloyie, i. pp. 
4-14 4-1 x, by Theodor Xoldeke. NY>ldeke accepted Ganneau's 
discovery that the phrase in Dan. v. contains names of weights, 

I'lll clearh -:i\\ in /pfl I he shekel, e \ pla i n ilii-; I he I liree yvord.s 

^pn and D"i? olute forme of N M rj , N s pn < and 

respectively, In she oase of xyj in- notioee (hat the 

\\oid for ini!:a in S\ riac occurs only in (lie emphatic stale, 
XT.} , :i form like X'Jp Teed.' AdmiUm- thai theahsolute 
stale of Mich V701 nvoK 6761 lound, he adds ihat accord 

bo all analogy, and especially al'ter the manner of at I jecti\ 68 
and participle-- like Syriac Xm X S .l . (& -////'//. N'OI i\ Ml ?.V. 
Nyj N\ould ha\e heen in the older lan^na^e the absolute 

of x*yj. Regarding the xrj xyj of Dan, \ 

repetitiitn f the same word, he accordingly 

tin' translation, ' a mina, a mtna, a shekel and halt' minas." 

A third attempt to explain the enigma WUfl adxanced in 
l ss . li\ 1 >r. GrBOrg llotl'mann, of Kiel, who dilTcrcd from 
V-ldcke onl\ in in^that 7pJ;l 'shekel' iniixlit he in 

appitsiii.ui to NJ'J explainiiii;- ^pP X]*J as 'a mina in shekel 
pieces.' (/tftc/tr. j'a 1^ .. ii. !." ISV 

(ianneau's dlBOOVeTJ and its t-ritical scrutiny ly Noldeke 
ha\e estahlished (he fact heyond donht that N*yj ^pH and 
f'D^D f \ t re to he consideri'tl as names of weights. 

It does _ not seem necc^ar\, !io\\e\cM\ to regard XJ*J N^*J as 
a repetition of (he same won!. A Noldeke himself has 
noticed, hm did not adopt in his interpretation, the form XJ*J 
can he regarded MB a pasM\e participle Teal from X^*J * to 
count/ as Aranuean and S\ riac \erhs A/Y/<r }'<V// form their 
76 participles in this marnu In this way the 

m\Mcnons sentence max he translated as follows: "There ha\e 
heen counted a mina, a shekel and half minas.' This transla 
(ion which was siii^ested hy l*rof. llaiipt in the session of 
the Semitic Seminar^ >l the Johns Hopkins l'niyersit\ of the 
N':ir w>nld seem to receixe additional eontinnat ion, 

when we consider the peculiar application of these names of 

' l( max lu- \vcll to n-iuMilx iliat NoMckc Joe. c/7.. tl,")^ consiilcrcil it 

I tin- --I'u K ,'( (lu- language t. regard f*L?^? M a lual in form as 

.li.lti.i!iM\ni. (JEW lloil'iuaiin, Zt'itm'hr. 

pointed i>u( tliat in mean in-,, .it lea^t, (he won I lias 

a dual l.uve HIM a- in Q'*J^ ' t u 

Hie Johns Hopkins I'nhvi'siti/ Circnhi " 18, />. 101 ami the 
o|kiu^ Ul i;?. 

ill- to tlir circumstance- under which flic writing ap 

Gannean, among ;i niimlxT of rather fanciful explanations 

recalled the Talniudic metaphorical ! POE ami DHD, 

^ niina/ and c half mina/ In I In- Talmudic writ inir- we find 

ionallv tin- inferior -on of a worthy lather, culled v a half 
niina son of a mina' TOO p D"l3;, while B iperior to 

hi.- father i- -poken oi' B ' a iniii:i -"ii . d' a h;d f in in;i ' ( POO 

p), ;uid si >on (Mjiiid to hi- f;ither ;i- w ;i iniiiii .-n of a 

ina 1 (ni*J p nyj/ 1 . In ;i rather vague manner characteri tie 

of Ins whole paper. ( ,;iiine;i n th;it the IliUieal ;iulhor 

iniu'ht had in mind .-oine -neli ;dlii-ion, ;md hint witlioiit 
;iny delinite e\ j.l;ni;it ion th;it ;i |;ir;dle| nii^ht h;ive heen nie;mt 
hetU'een .\el)iieh;idne//;ir, the father and Uel-Jia/./a r the 
-on. Keterrinjj- to pD"l5, he mention- that thi- \\or(|. owinu 
to it- re-eml)lanee to D")) ' Per-ian/ ma\ ha\e determined 

the choice of tip , theme l<, explain the prophec\ 

relative to the coming of 'lie IVr ! 'crtainl\ jaf e to 

'iat (.anneaii arri\<-(| ;it no definite conclu.-ioii on the ul. 

ject. ( >n th- rt i-lc. he fancifully com| . 

the whole BCene of Chapter v. hoth to He from tJie 

tian ' !; be head ' and to the -cene often IOIIIK! on 

; cylinder-, repp ited on a throne 

holding I !"j- lihation-. delabrum, an in-criptiofi 

on the -eal and two p'-i 1 of whom pre ent the other 

to the _i-ool. I'.ahylon and K^vpt he thought ma\ have in 
Ihienced the author of I)anicl in hi- description of the j'ea I 
of I5el.-hax/. 

Nolde|:e \virh hi- u-iial c;nition a,ttempted nothing heyond 
the mere grammatical explanation of the \\ord- l.nt Iloll'mann 

i'J of hi- article) con-ider.-d that pD")D, 4 two halfini 
referred to a divi-ion of the I'jnpire bi the M'-de hai'iu 

and the Per.-iai! ' 

<<"'/ w, nrj ^VN DiD p n:rj xy novo 
:DiQ p n:t: ^vx n:t3 p n:s NT ^NI n:o p |; 

thai a. jiiina ~.< >n of a halt-jnina <-<,in<-\o;i mina. -.on of a niina. (>ut not 
n of a niiria -lioul'l '-onn' to a niina on of a lialf inina.' 
f' \\'i',i-lt>i-lmrh. ii. l>. I'). 

paronOOQU inai l;--| ;,| ., !,, iVrtlioMt. ' |);mi-l.' , 

l)ani-|. , 



\Ve ha vi; seen that the mysterious sentence contains three 
names of weights grouped together in a strange order, the two 
greater quantities being separated by the lesser; i.e. mina, 
shekel and half-minas. It may be supposed that beneath these 
terms lies some typical meaning which is not fully brought out 
in the explanation of the sentence by Daniel. The interpreta- 
tion which the writer puts into the mouth of the prophet is 
based on a paronomasia. Thus, mina (KJQ) is explained by 
NJP < to count,' ' God has counted thy kingdom and finished 
it.' Shekel (^pp) is explained by ^pn 'to weigh:' 'Thou 
art weighed in the balances and found wanting.' Half-mina 
(D*l$) is explained by D"l|) < to divide.' ' The kingdom has 
been divided (fiDH)) and given to the Medes and Persians.' 
In the latter case there is clearly a double paronomasia on 
DHS 'Persian.' 

Professor Haupt, following up the idea of Ganneau regard- 
ing the symbolical meaning of the words, explained the mina, 
which is the largest Babylonian weight, as an allusion to the 
great King Nebuchadnezzar ; the shekel, one sixtieth as valu- 
able," as the symbol of Belshazzar, whom the author of Daniel 
considered the unworthy son and successor of the founder of 
the Babylonian empire ; and the two half-minas as referring 
to the division of the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar between 
the Medes and Persians. If the sentence be understood in 
this way, as indicating a comparison of persons, it becomes 
clear that &OO &OD can hardly be considered a repetition of 
the same word, as there would be no point in thus repeating 
the symbol for Nebuchadnezzar. The mysterious sentence 
therefore implies a scathing comparison of the unworthy last 
king of Babylon with his great predecessor, and a prophecy of 

8 It is well known that the weight mina contained 60 shekels, this 
shekel serving also as the smallest gold unit; i. e., a gold shekel 
weighed one sixtieth of the weight rnina. The money mina on the other 
hand contained only 50 shekels. See Levy, Chald. Worterbuch, under 
}$J and compare C. F. Lehmann, in Verhandlungen der physikalischen 
Uwllwluiftzu Berlin, published February, 1890, p. 95, also JVr/mm/- 
lungen der Berliner Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, March, 1889, p. 
k .M!, ' Encycl. Brit.' xvii. 631 and Haupt, Akkad. Swm-riNclic. Keil- 
xrli,-ifttexte,p. 55,42: (Jibit 1 IIHI.-IHI, 1:3 Sii/li-tiiii. 'tin- interest of one 
iniiiM is twelve ^lukels; /. c. , at -Ml pel' cent. 


the speedy downfall of the native Babylonian dynasty and the 
division of the empire between the Modes and Persians. 
Nebuchadnezzar, practically the founder of the Babylonian 
empire and really the greatest name of the time, might well 
be called the mina. The author of Daniel throughout the 
fifth chapter is perfectly right in comparing him with the 
insignificant last king. As will be seen from the subsequent 
discussion of the various accounts regarding the fall of Baby- 
lon, the two chief points in the later Babylonian history arc 
really the rise and development of the empire under Nebuchad- 
nezzar and its final overthrow under Belshazzar's father 
Xabonidu>, so that the Biblical author in choosing Nebu- 
chadnezzar as the father >(' Belshazzar, although inaccurate a> 
to detail, nevertheless reflect* faithfully the general historical 
facts of the period. 

The Medes and Persian.- were rhe people who destroyed the 
unity of the Babylonian power and divided between them the 
great empire of Nebuchadnezzar. The Medes. a brief outline 
of whose history, previous to their subjugation by the Persians, 
is given below, attained the height of their greatness under 
Cyaxan-. who subdued the A ->yrians and laid waste Nineveh 
their pnmd capital. Although attaining a considerable in- 
fluence in the farther Mast, they were certainly never a world 
power until their union with the Persians under ( 'yrus. This 
combination was sufficient to subjugate the entire West and to 
establish an empire which lasted for centuries. Why the 
author of Daniel introduces a Median dynasty before- the Per- 
sians is discussed fully hereafter. 

But why was it that the learned scribes whom the king sum- 
moned to decipher the inscription were totally unable to read 
and interpret the sentence '. 

To explain this difficulty a great number of conjectures have 
been advanced by various commentators.' 1 Thus Liiderwald in 
his fc Critical examination of the first six chapters of Daniel,' 
(quoted by Bertholdt, k Daniel/ j>. ?M) considered the portent 
a> a vision of the king alone, which no one save the super- 

'' For a collection of the opinions of the older commentators, c/. 
Pfeiffer ' Dubia Vexata,' p. 503, quoted by Bertholdt, p. ijr,o. 


naturally gifted Daniel could interpret. 10 This is the saint- a> 
Calvin's conjecture, which lie offered as one of two possible 
hypotheses : " probabile est vel scripturam f uisse regi proposi- 
tain, et latuisse onmes Chaldasos vel ita excaecatos fuisse ; ut 
videndo non viderunt, quemadmodum etiam Dens saepe ejus- 
modi stnporeni denuntiat Jndaeis." See edition of Baum, 
Cnnitz and Reuss, vol. xl, col. 704.) 

Nothing in the text of chapter v. however, seems to support 
such a view. The evident terror not only of the king but also 
of his lords, and the statement in verse 8, that the wise men 
could neither read nor interpret the writing seem to show that 
the author had no intention of representing the portent as 
merely a freak of the king's brain. 

Some of the Talmndists thought that the words were writ- 
ten according to the Cabbalistic alphabet JJOfiN ; i. e. one in 
which the first letter has the last as its equivalent. 11 It may be 
well to note in connection with this from the Ethiopic corre- 
spondence of Job Ludolf published by Flemming in the second 
volume of Delitzsch and Haupt's Beitr'dge zur Assyriologie 
that a similar cryptographic method of writing involving the 
interchange of letters was known to the Abyssinians. 

It is hardly worth while to discuss here the idea advanced 
by some of the other Talmudists that the characters of the 
mysterious sentence were arranged in three lines as a sort of 
table and .were to be read vertically and not horizontally. 13 

10 See D. S. Margoliouth, ' Jephet Ibn All's Daniel,' p. 26. 

11 See Buxtorf , ' Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbinicum,' 
col. 248, and Levy, ' Neuhebraisches und Chaldaisches Worterbuch ' 
under rV?NN , *1"IK -> DD* [*Y?NN however is due to a process quite 
different to ^J"1N For the opinion that the sentence was a crypto- 
gram compare Pfeiffer, op. cit., p. 805, and for all these views see San- 
hedrim 22". 

12 Beitrdgezur Assyriologie, ii. 110. 

13 See Ganneau, loc. cit., p. 88. Some considered the sentence as 
an anagram ; see Levy, ' Neuhebr. und Chald. Worterb.', under Q^N ; 
while two of the older commentators, Menochius and Mahlonatus 
thought that only the initial letters of each word were written. 
(They are quoted by Bertholdt, * Daniel,' p. 350). Jephet Ibn Ali, the 
Karaite, held the view that the words were written backward ; for ex- 
:i niple $X2 was arranged as if it were Q^X , and that the letters of all 
the four words were similarly transposed. See Margoliouth's transla- 
tion, p. 26. Pfeiirer. p. SOS, expressed (lie opinion that the words were 
written in 'Chalda-an letters whieh were intricately arranged. 


Thube and others, at the end of the last century, (quoted by 
Bertholdt, * Daniel/ 351), held that the writing may have ap- 
peared in such unusual characters as to prevent its decipher- 
ment hy the hierogrammatists ; and the Gottingen Professor of 
Biblical Philology, the late Ernst Bertholdt, suggested that it 
may have been written in some complicated nourished hand- 
writing (rharakterschrift, k Daniel/ p. 379). It is interesting 
to note in this connection that so great a scholar as JohailD 
Dayid Michaelis, of Gottingen, was the author of the following 
wild but amusing theory. He translated the exprosiun 'end 
of the hand' (see below, Appendix II. note to yerse 5), by 
'the inner surface of the hand/ That is, the hand must hayc 
appeared to the king as if writing from the other side of the 
wall, which by some my>terioii> means had become transpar- 
ent! The writing was therefore reveised as' if in a mirror, 
which fact remained unnoticed until Daniel was summoned 
(see Michael!-. ' I )aniel/ j>/>. 4l 5l)). Some scholars, on the 
other hand, believed that the inscription may have been in a 
foreign language or character unknown to the wise men. 
Thus I'rideaux (quoted by Bertholdt, :4S) suggested Old 
Pho-nician, while I'uscy r Daniel/ \\1(\] believed it may have 
been written in the old Hebrew script. Finally, some recent 
critic-, evidently under A.-.yriological influence, have inclined 
to the opinion that tin- words presented themselves to the king- 
in the Babylonian ideographic character. ' 

The question a> to the difficulty of decipherment is really 
narrowed down to one of two hypothoo. The reason why the 
learned scribes whom the king had summoned were totally 
unable to read or interpret the writing must have been that the 
mysterious sentence appeared either in a foreign language or 
in an unusual form of the vernacular. Had the warning been 
written in a foreign language, the probability is that it would 
have been immediately recognized at so cosmopolitan a court 
as the Babylonian, which had come in contact with so many 
foreign nations. Then, too, had the writing appeared in an 

14 So, for instance, Andrea, in his article on the Feast of Belshazzar 
in Beweis d< * (Ihinhriix. ISSM. j>j t . 268-264, ami de Lagarde in his admir- 
able review of E. Havet's La modennte des prophdtes, in Mittheilungen, 
iv. p. 364 = Oott. Gel Anz., 1891, p. 519. 


unknown idiom, the effect of tin: interpretation would have 
been, to n great extent, lost on tlie king. But as soon as the 
explanation was given, Belshazzar understood it perfectly. 

It is certainly most natural to suppose that the inscription 
was originally written in the Babylonian language and in the 
cuneiform script, having been translated later and handed down 
in the Aramaean in the form which we find in the Book of 
Daniel. 16 This view is strengthened by the fact that the sen- 
tence can be reproduced in Babylonian with surprisingly little 

The Aramaean sentence, as given in the twenty -fifth verse 
of the fifth chapter, reads pD"l)1 ^pD &OO N30 . As stated 
above, the first JOp is probably to be considered as a passive 
participle from fcOQ 4 to count.' In this case the correspond- 
ing form in Assyrian would be muni. The second N^D 
meaning mina is equivalent to the Assyrian man a = ' mina,' 
usually written ideographically nt-iut and in form the pas- 
sive participle of inanu 'to count.' The Assyrian word for 
mina, although generally occurring ideographically, is occasion- 
ally found written jtl'ttc. Thus in Nebuchadnezzar IT, 6 ; 189. 5, 

15 Kamphausen in his pamphlet, ' Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Ge- 
schichtsforschung,' 1893, pp. 45, 46, has unintentionally misrepresented 
me, as stating in the Johns Hopkins Circulars, No. 98, p. 94, that the 
author of the Book of Daniel was familiar with the cuneiform inscrip- 
tions! I merely indicated that the original of the mysterious sentence 
may have been in Babylonian. 

10 Passives with internal vowel change have not been lost in Assy- 
rian but are not developed. The active and passive participles are not 
yet sharply distinguished, the difference being merely arbitrary. For 
examples of the passive participle, cf. the frequent kitna labirixii xutir 
'written like its original,' and sapux epru = 'dust is spread.' See 
Haupt, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1878, p. 244. We may 
compare in this connection the frequent passive meaning of the Inten- 
sive Permansive. See Zimmern, Busspsalmen, p. 11. 

The Assyrian Permansive must be considered the prototype of the 
common Semitic Perfect, as there are no evidences that Assyrian once 
possessed and then lost its Perfect. J. A. Knudtzon in the Ztwln: fi'ir 
A*Ni/riologie, vii, p. 48 (April, 1892), goes too far. however, in demand- 
ing a common name for both the Pennansive and Perfect, as they are 
by no means fully identical. The Assyrian Permansive is not a stereo- 
typed tense like the ordinary Semitic Perfect, as the language can use 
any noun or adjective in a permansive sense by suflixing the pronomi- 
nal endings. See in this connection llanpt. Inc. at., p. 2-1(5. 


in Tallquist, i Spraelie der Contracte Nabun&'ids,'jp. tM>, we find 
the form nt->i x-u in Xebuch. 4J>. 8.4. in Strassmaier, ' Baby- 
loni.sche Texte/ ma-nij and in Nebuch. 07.4; 170.5; 282.5, 
in Strassmaier, l Bab. Texte,' ma-ni-e. N<tnn is a form like 
(/<//( A 'reed.' 17 

Itis interesting to notice that the familiar Mammon (Ma/iwm?) 
of the Xew Testament may be a loan word from the same stem 
as ///'/////, mina. There is an Assyrian word nniim'tim proba- 
bly meaning ' a vessel capable of holding a inina full/ which 
occurs in the El Amarua inscriptions, frequently in connection 
with />/>////. .lensen considered rightly that />/>//// and iniinnnm 
are the prototype of the Manda'an N^'EI JOJHN ' money 
and property/ with metathesis iu the case of A ////// and 
NDJIIX . A similar change of consonants he finds in /^//v/////// 
stonecutter' and N^DTDN.'" \<ildeke, 'Maud, (iram/, 
j>. r>(, connects Manda'an NJI^O with the Syriac 
Mafjicovas. It is extremely probable, therefore, that 
is the original of Ma/^ojm?. Hoffmann's idea is, of course, 
untenable that -=^i-= i> a loan word from the Ph<enician 
D^O 4 treasures/ which, he thinks, is connected with the 
(iivek vdfju((r)fJLa. ^yriac (Grammar' Engl. edi- 

tion, j>. xi.) Dyj is ])robably a plural of Jll*J , mina, and 
is consequently purely a Semitic stem. (( 1 ompare Levy, * Plxe- 
ni/isches W^orterbuch,' l s <4.) 

Shekel, the third word of the mysterious >-ntence, by regu- 
lar mutation of j") and ^corresponds to the Assyrian ,v/y/^, 
from NiKjtiht 'to weigh/ The word is almost invariably writ- 
ten ideographic-ally '\'\\ but the form x/V//// is now established 
as the propel- pronunciation. ia 

17 Note th;it a number of forms iil> <i<mn suffer apocope of the long 
final vo\vcl ill (lie construct state. Thus t/<in /'i -< t nu ; sadu. inoun- 
tain/.sf/'/; it<i*ii. lc:ircr.' u<t* ; r<i*u. "possessor." rax; rahu, 'great,' 

"For tl.e Mandsean N31T01 N^")N , sec Noldeke, M<iH<li\i*<-ln' 
Crdnninilik, it. ")(). nid 1'or ^s l ?D^J^^ compare Jensen, Komnofoi/ic. 
293, ran. '3: :i-YJ. rt-in. For e.\;imples of metathesis sec Zimmern. Zcit- 
.s'c// ///'/ /'/'/ Assyriologie, v. 1G4, ?i. 4. 

111 See Bruno Meissnei-, Ztwli. fi'u- .\nsyriologie, vii. (April, 1892), p. 20. 

AltbtibyloniSCheS rrinifrrrht, p. 93. Delitzsch, ^1.s.s-///-/.sr//r.s UVJ/'/r/'- 
i.' 14. //. 4. ;ni(l Lelmiann in a metrolo^ic;il pnper in th<- \ r n-lmml- 
<l< r Hn-liiirr An.thrnjntfnifisrht'ii r/ r//7. .June 20, IS01, y>. 


's reading for TU, da/ragmctna (Ztschr. fur Assy- 
i. 4tfO), he has himself abandoned. (See Beit fit y<- .:/// 
/V, i. 496.) Siqlu is a form like Sibtu 'staff'; igru 
4 hire,' etc. 

The last word of the phrase f*p")@ ' half minas,' plural of 
, is equivalent to the Assyrian parsu 4 a part,' from 
'tQ separate.' 20 J^u'su means technically a section of 
a chapter or a paragraph. (See Keilinschr., BibliotheTe-, ii. 
p. 284, I. 39.) 

Combining then these words as in the Aramaean of Daniel, 
the supposed Assy ro-Baby Ionian original may be restored as fol- 
lows: mani mana siqlu u parsdni, 'there have been counted 
a miiia, a shekel and parts.' 21 (Parts of a mina = half -minas.) 
i Counted' means, of course, in this connection, 'the following 
has been fixed by fate.' We may compare the use of j"UD in 
Isaiah Ixv. 12, 'and I will allot you to the sword.' (VTJD1 
D*"]f"f? DDfTO) ; Psalm cxlvii. 4, ' He fixes the number of the 
stars' (0*3513*? "ISpD rtjlD). 

If it be thus assumed that the mysterious inscription appeared 
in the Babylonian language and in cuneiform characters, it is 
easy to explain the inability of the king and his lords, and even 
of the skilled scribes to decipher the writing, as an ideographic 
rendering of these names of weights would have baffled the 

518, n. 1. The stem saqdlu may be a shaphel formation from qtilu ' be 
light.' Compare sakdnu probably from f)3 and sardru from *"flj$ . 
In the case of saqdlu, however, the is a ?'i, appearing in Arabic as 
i^, while the S of the shaphel is s , because we find it in Arabic as 
.p, . We may explain this by supposing that such a form as Jjj* 
with cy was borrowed from a dialect where the original ffi of the 
shaphel was lisped like jl . Compare the case of p*V)) ^ ee below, 
Appendix II., note to verse 7, and Beitrdge zur Assyr., i. 181, note 2. 

- par dsu = ' separate,' in Asurb., ix. 46 ; 'check, stop,' in Sennach., 
vi. 14, iv. R. 57, 7a, East India House Inscr., ii. 19 ; 'quarrel,' in iv. 58, 
22 ; ' alienate,' in Asurb., iii. 83. 

81 Professor Haupt informs me that Dr. P. Jensen of Strassburg in a 
University lecture explained the mysterious words of Dan. v. as having 
probably come from some Assyrian proverb, which he thinks might 
have read about as follows : manu mane Saqlu parse*, 'minas were 
counted but half minas were weighed.' Jensen thought that this 
phrase was used whenever anything proved <>f less value than tirst 
appearances seemed to warrant. 


ingenuity of the most expert scholars of the Babylonian court. 
Of course it cannot be denied, as Lagarde has pointed out, that 
the ideographic values of these four words, ' count, mina, shekel 
and part/ were undoubtedly signs with which any educated 
Babylonian was familiar. ( 4 Mittheilungen,' iv. 304.) If, how- 
ever, we suppose that the ideograms were written close together 
without any division between the individual words, a style of 
writing we often meet with in the cuneiform inscriptions, thus: 

it would be just as hard to read as a rebus and would puzzle 
the most skillful decipherer. The difficulty would have been 
still more increased if the ideograms had been grouped in some 
unusual way, severing the natural connection of the component 
elements; for example, thus: 

If the signs had been written in this manner it would have 
been almost impossible to arrive at their true meaning. The 
tirst combination, SID-MA, might have some fifteen different 
meanings, the second group, N A-TL-L. might signify 4 is fit' 
or suitable/ while the third and last, HAIM'AU. is capable 
of explanation in a variety of ways. " Of course, as soon as 
one is told the meaning of the combination, the sentence at 
once becomes clear. 

De Lagarde (/. r.) has amusingly remarked that the riddle is 
of the same nature as that of the Innsbrucker who. as a greet- 
ing to his emperor coming to the Tyrolean capital, had the fig- 
ure of a Franciscan monk painted on his house with the word 
"wie" written over it. The rebus is to read ' \Vie Franz ist 
kaner' (Tyrolese pronunciation for " keiner '). This, however, 
is hardly a good parallel. A better illustration of the nature 
of the mysterious sentence may be found in the tricky Latin 
phrases often given in Latin primers in (iermany : /. e. 'no bis 
per pontem/ "anser bibit niagis ter,' 'mea mater est mala sus/ 

21 For SID-MA see Bri'mnow's 'List,' nos. 5964-5981 and 5997-8. For 
unlfi. iiii'Miiin^ < is fit, suitable,' see 'Nimrod Kjn'c." 67, I. 18, while for 
BAR-BAR, compare :I.^JUM Rn"iim<>\v. >/<>. \12Sff. 



The above more or less conjectural explanations have been 
offered under the supposition that the account given in the 
fifth chapter of Daniel is to a certain extent historical. It can- 
not be denied, however, that if the fifth chapter, and indeed 
the entire book of Daniel be regarded as pretending to full 
historical authority, the Biblical record is open to all manner 
of attack. The Book of Daniel must not be considered as 
intended by the author to be a veracious account of events 
which took place at the time of the fall of Babylon, but rather 
as a political pamphlet of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
It is now the general opinion of most scholars who study the 
Old Testament from a critical point of view, that the Book of 
Daniel cannot have originated, according to the accepted 
theory,* at the time of Cyrus. The following are the chief 
reasons for such a conclusion. 

It should be noticed, first, that the position . of the Book 
among the Hagiographa instead of among the DWDJ would 
seem to indicate that it must have been introduced after the 
closing of the Prophetic Canon. The explanation that the 
Apocalyptic nature of the work did not entitle it to a position 
among the Prophetic books is hardly satisfactory. Some com- 
mentators believed that Daniel was not an actual NOJ or 
prophet, in the proper sense, but only a seer (Jlffl so Hiiver- 
nick), or else that he was a prophet merely by natural gifts, 
but not by official standing. 1 If Daniel, however, had really 

* See additional note A. 

1 The explanation originated with the Rabbinical writers that Daniel 
l':i<l the HpH im 'spirit of holiness,' but not the nNID^H ITD 
'the official inspiration ' (Qamchi, 'Preface to the Psalms'; Maiiuon. 
More Nebochim,' 2. 41, 119, quoted by Bertholdt, p. xiii). The Rab- 
binical device was followed and elaborated by a number of the later 
orthodox commentators. Thus, Auberlen, ' Daniel, pp. 34, 35, Franz 
Dclil/sdi in Her/oi; uml i'litt's Real Encycl. iii. 271, 272, 'Commen 
tiny <n Isaiah," |>. X, Keil, I )aniel,'p. 23, etc. See also in this connec- 
lion Kraiiichfcld.' Daniel,' />- >, Len.^erke, ' Daniel,' p. 5(15, etc. 


seen the visions which are * attributed to him by the work bear- 
ing his name, he was certainly a great prophet, and, as has been 
pointed ont by Bleek, would have had fully as much right to 
be ranked as such as Amos, Ezekiel or Zecliariah. 2 The natu- 
ral explanation regarding the position of the I look of Daniel 
is that the work could not have been in existence at the time 
of the completion of the second part of the canon, as otherwise 
the collectors of the prophetic writings, who in their case did 
not neglect even the parable of Jonah, would hardly have 
ignored the record of such a irreat prophet as Daniel is repre- 
sented to be. 

Second! t/^ the silence of Je>i i > Siracli concerning Daniel si-ems 
to show that the prophet was unknown to that late writer. 
Jesus Siracli, in his list of celebrated men (chapter 4l). makes 
no mention of Daniel, but passes from Jeremiah to K/ekiel and 
then to the twelve minor prophetfl and Zerubhabel. If Daniel 
had been known to Jesus Siracli we would certainly expect to 
find him in this list, probably between Jeremiah and K/ekiel. 
Again the only explanation appears to he that the Hook of 
Daniel was not known to Jesus Siracli, who wrote between 
k 200 and ISO \\. ( \ Mad so celebrated a person as Daniel 
been known, he could hardly have ex-aped mention in such a 
complete list of Israel's leading spirits. Eengfitenberg re- 
marked that K/ra and Monlecai were also left iinmeiitioned, 
but the case is not parallel. Daniel i> reprex-nted in the work 
attributed to him a> a great prophet, while 1 K/ra appears as 
nothing more than a rather prominent priest and scholar. 

A third argument against an early origin for the book is the 
fact that the post-exilic prophets exhibit no trace of its influenc". 
Had the Hook of Daniel been extant and generally known 
since the time of Cyrus, it would be reasonable to look for 
some sign of its power among the writings of prophets like 
llaggai, Zechariah and Malachi. 

8 Bleek, ' Einleitung,' 5th ed., 418. In the LXX. the book is placed 
directly after Ezekiel, which shows that the translators considered it a 
prophetic work. Compare in this connection the opinion of J;u h.ja 
(quoted by Bertholdt, loc. cit.) who attributed to Daniel the highest 
degree of prophetic inspiration ; ^njlH JlVp 


In addition to this, the actual contents of the book itself 
seem to preclude the supposition of even an approximately 
contemporary origin for the work. The Book of Daniel differs 
materially from all other prophetic writings of the Old Testa- 
ment in the especial details of its prophecies. Other prophets 
confine themselves to vague and general predictions, but the 
Book of Daniel gives a detailed account of historical events 
which may easily be recognized and identified through the 
thin veil of prophetic mystery thrown lightly around them. 
If it be supposed that the book originated at the time of 
Cyrus, the positiveness with which events of the far future are 
prophesied is certainly strange. It is highly suggestive that 
while the Book of Daniel contains an account of a long series 
of historical events, just those occurrences which are the most 
remote from the assumed standpoint of the writer are the most 
correctly stated, while the nearer we approach to the author's 
supposed time, the more inaccurate does he become. This has 
especial application to the last chapters, x.-xii., where the com- 
bats between the Ptolemaides and Seleucides are so clearly laid 
before the reader that the visions have more the appearance of 
history than prophecy. In addition to this correctness of 
detail, the chronological reckoning by days for future events is 
very striking. (Of. chapter viii. 14; xii. 11, 12.) 

The Hebrew prophets rarely set definite times for future 
occurrences, and when they do, give a date in round numbers. 
(Except, of course, in the interpolated passage, Is. vii. 8 in 
which connection see Delitzsch, ' Comm. on Isaiah,'^>. 137.) The 
prophecies in the Book of Daniel seem to centre on the period 
of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the Syrian prince was endeav- 
oring to suppress the worship of Jehovah and substitute for it 
the Greek idolatry. These passages either break oft' directly 
with the overthrow of this prince or else add a prophecy of 
freedom for God's people from all oppressions and the an- 
nouncement of a Messianic Kingdom and the resurrection of 
the dead. A comparison of the Apocalyptic and narrative 
chapters makes it apparent that we have the same prophecies 
in all, repeated in different forms. The vision of the colossi! 
image in cli. ii. is evidently identical with the vision of the four 
Leasts in ch. vii. In the 'Little Horn,' ch. vii. 8 ; viii. V and 


the wicked prince described in clis. ix.-xi., who is to work such 
evil aiiiou"- the saints, we have clearly one and the same per- 
son. Moreover, in all the prophecies, a period of trial and 
tribulation is followed by the triumph* of the Lord and his 
saints. According to the Hook of Daniel four distinct empires 
are to arise, during which time the sufferings of the saints are 
to increase until they culminate at the end of the fourth empire 
under a prince worse than all his predecessors, after which the 
Kingdom of (iod is to appear. A careful examination of the 
hook makes it apparent that the author believed that Nebu- 
chadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Uelsha/zar, who was 
displaced by Darius the Median, and he in turn followed by 
Cyril,'- tlu- Persian. It seems evident, therefore, that in the 
mind of the author the four empires were: tirst. the IJahy Io- 
nian, represented by Xebiicliadne/zar and his immediate suc- 
r, Uclshazzar; second, that of Darius the Median; third, 
the Persian empire of Cyrus, and fourth, the empire of Alex- 
ander and his successors, culminating at the time of Antiochiis 
Kpiphanes. (( 'ompare Uen. ( icschichte des Alfen Testaments,' 
l>. .V.C) ff. ) It is now generally recognized that ch. xi. iM \:>. 
refers to tin- evil deeds of Antiochiis IV. and his attempts 
against the Jewish people and the worship of Jehovah. In 
chapter xii. follows the promise of salvation from the tyrant. 
In ch. viii. the kinir symbolized by the Little Horn/ of whom 
it is said that he will come from one of four kingdoms which 
shall be formed from the (ireek empire after the death of its 
first kiiiij;-, can be none other than Antiochus Kpiphanes. In 
like manner do the references in ch. ix. plainly allude 
to this prince. (Compare in this connection IJleck, " Kin- 
leitmiu 1 .' j>j>. 4*2^ jf.) It would be extremely ditlicult to recon- 
cile these facts with the theory of a Babylonian authorship for 
the book, because. setting aside the marvel of such accurate 
prophecy centuries before the events referred to, it would be 
natural to expect that a prophet of the time of the Babylonian 
captivity would rather direct his attention to the freedom of 
his people from their servitude in Habylon than from the 
oppression of a kinii 1 who ruled centuries later. It would be 

* See additional note B. 


nmiv natural, too, to expect in an early work prophecies of the 
return of the Jews to Palestine, as in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 
Isaiah, rather than the proclamation of an ideal Messianic king- 
dom, such as we find in the Book of Daniel. 

Not only do the Apocalyptic portions of the book seem to 
preclude the theory of a Babylonian authorship, 3 but the 
numerous inaccuracies in the narrative sections make it 
equally difficult to hold such a view. Such statements as 
are found, for example, in the fifth chapter only, which 
will be fully discussed below, can hardly date from Baby- 
lonian times. No writer living at the Babylonian court 
of Cyrus could have asserted, for instance, that Belshazzar 
was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 4 or have interpolated a 
Median ruler between the last king of Babylon and the Per- 
sians. Nor are these historical inaccuracies by any means 
confined to ch. v. Among the most important occurring in 
other narrative sections, should be mentioned ; first, The 
chronological error in ch. i., that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusa- 
lem as king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim, while 
it is known from Jeremiah xxv. 1, that the former did not 
begin to reign in Babylon until the fourth year of the latter, 
and that the Babylonians in the ninth month of the fifth year 
of Jehoiakim had not yet come to Jerusalem. (From Jeremiah 
\\.\vi. 9, 29 ; see Bleek, op. cit.. 427). The origin of this error 
has been traced to a false combination of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 
(\f. and 2 Kings, xxiv. 1. (See Kamphausen, 'Das Buch 
Daniel und die neuere Geschichtsforschung,' p. 17). Second, 
The statement in ch. ii. 1, that Nebuchadnezzar had his 
famous dream in the second year of his reign, is in direct 

3 For the evident lateness of the second part of the book, cf. Bleek, 
' Einleitung,'' p. 420 ; Strack, Herzog and Plitt's ' Real Encyclopaedic,' 
vii 2 . 419 : Hoffmann, 'Antiochus,' iv. pp. 82 ff ; Driver, ' Introduction to 
tin- Study of Old Testament Literature, '_p. 461. It has.been remarked 
that the contents of ch. ix, referring to Jerusalem, would remove all 
I in) her doubt as to the late origin. (See Derenbourg, Hebraica, iv. 8, 
note 1.) 

4 It is interesting to notice that as early as A.D. 1757, Goebel, ' De 
Belsasaro,' (see Reuss, * Geschichte,' p. 602), called attention to this his- 
torical error. Reuss mentions also Sartorius, 'Hist. Excid. Babyl.' 
(Tiibingrn, 1766); Norberg, Opp. iii. 222. 


contradiction to ch. i. where it is asserted that Nebuchadnezzar 
was king when Daniel and his companions were taken into 
captivity and that the latter were trained three years at court. 
The interpretation of the dream must have taken place after 
this period of three years, and consequently later than the 
second year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

An additional evidence that the Book of Daniel must have 
been written at a considerably later period than the Persian con- 
<|iK-stof Babylon may be found in the presence' of both Persian 
and Greek loanwords. The occurrence of the former shows con- 
clusively that the book must have originated after the conquest 
of Babylon, 6 while the proeiice of Greek words appears to 
preclude the possibility of setting the origin of the work prior 
to the time of Alexander the (treat. The names of the three 
musical instruments in chapter iii ; fT<33*J1D , ver>e :>. \:> (also 
v. 10 in the form nO*3'D), prODl) ! D"Wp are undoubt- 
edly loanwords from the Greek av^wvla, "fya\rr)piov and 

It can hardly be supposed that these three e ntially Greek 
names of musical instruments were current at the court of 
Nebuchadnezzar. \Vhile there was in all likelihood some 
intercourse, even at that time, between the A-iatics and the 
lonians in Asia Minor, it does not seem probable that the 
influence was then strong enough to cause the adoption by the 
Babylonians of Greek mu>ical instrument- and even of their 
Greek names. In Assyrian literature the first mention of the 
lonians occurs in the inscriptions of Sar^oii (7i^-7nr \*>. < 1 .) 
who relates that lie conquered the 'YfUtnu'i' who yl welt 'in the 

6 The theory advanced by Strack in Zockler's ' Handbuch,' i. 165. and 
' Real Encycl/, vii.- 419, that the occurrence of Persian loanwords nec- 
essarily points to a pre-Maccabaean origin for tliese sections docs not 
seem tenable. It is ijuitc conceivable that Persian loanwords sliould 
have remained until the time of Antiochus Epiphancs. For tlie opin- 
ion that the origin of the book of Daniel must be pre-Maccabaean see 
Additional Note B. 

6 For the termination -os in Hebrew, compare Ges. 'Thesaurus." 

7 ( 'ompare in this connection Cheyne, ' Encycl. Britannica,' vi. MOM, 
v "l : Driver, 'Introduction,' 470. Derenbourg, Hebraica. ii. pp. Iff. 
It is interesting to notice that the ^a/ri t ^n,v was a favorite instrument 
Of Antiochus Epiphanes. (See Polyluns : . \tln-naeiis. \. 52.) 


midst of the sea.' Abydenus in Eusebius (Chronico-H, ed. 
Schoene, i. 1. 35) tells of Sargon's successor (Sennacherib that 
he conquered the fleet of the Greeks on the Cilician coast : 
' In maris litore terrae Cilicum classem navali proelio cer- 
tantem navium Grsecorum profligans vicit.' Sennacherib 
himself relates that he manned his ships with ' maldxe 
( " a urrd, " l idund, m ^ lt YamndJ i. e. ' with Tyrian, Sidonian 
and Ionian sailors.' (Semi. Smith, 1. 91.) Neither in the 
later Assyrian nor in the Babylonian inscriptions does any 
further allusion to the Greeks occur. In fact not until 
the time of Darius Hystaspis, two hundred years later do 
we hear anything more of them. This king speaks frequently 
of a t m ^ Ydmanu^ evidently referring, not to Greece proper 
but to the Greek territory in Asia Minor. (See in this 
connection Delitzsch Wo lag das ParadiesJ pp. 248 if., and 
Schrader Keilinschriften und das alte Testament, 81-82). 
In view of the absolute silence of the Babylonian inscriptions, 
it may be inferred that the Greek influence, later so powerful 
had not yet begun to make itself perceptible in the East. 
With regard to the opinion of Praetorius in his review of 
Delitzsch, ' Hebrew and Assyrian,' in Kuhn's Literatwrblatt 
fur orientaliscJie Philologie, i. 195, that perhaps centuries 
before Asurbanipal a loanword from the non-Semitic languages 
of anterior Asia may have crept into the idioms of the Assy- 
rians, Hebrews, Aramaeans and even of the non-Semitic Sumer- 
ians, it seems to me difficult to come to any definite conclusion. 
It appears equally possible to consider the Assyrian pilai/</-n 
axe (the word in question) either as a loanword from the 
Greek TreXe/cu? according to this suggestion, 8 or to suppose 
that the word is original in Semitic and crept into the Indo- 
Germanic languages at a very early date, perhaps even before 
they differentiated. (So Lehmann ' Samassumukin' p. 127, 
who believes that the word is from the Sumerian W^(f/)). 
At Jiny rate this word certainly gives no assistance towards 
determining the period when Greeks and Semites first met. 

8 Both Frankel and Prsetorius hold this opinion. Compare also 
Lagarde '(ics. AMiandl.', 49. 10., Haupt ' Sumerischc FiiiniliniLi.osetze,' 
55, n. 5. DelifczKch ' Assyrisrlu> Studicii/ 18;? nil quoted M.-iupt. 
Bcitni-<v i.171 n. 


The object of the author of the .Hook of Daniel, in both 
the apocalyptic and narrative portions of the work, appears to 
he to comfort his oppressed people, demonstrating in the one case, 
hv means of prophetic vision.-, the nearness of their salvation 
and showing in the narrative sections by means of carefully 
arranged tales the inevitable overthrow of blasphemers against 
<iod. The stories of the tiery furnace and the linn's den are 
both excellent illustrations of the divine protection of the 
faithful during the pagan per>ecution. while in the account of 
the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter iv. the author 
seem.- to have had the intention of holding up the fate of the 
mighty Babylonian prince who had destroyed Jerusalem and 
the Temple, as a warning to Antiochu> Kpiphanes to desist in 
time from his blasphemous opposition to the King of Kings. 

To proceed, however, more e.-pecially to the fifth chapter. 
As has been mentioned above, it must be admitted that this 
section, which is the Hiblical record of the fall of the Babylon- 
ian dyna.-ty, cnntains certain striking inaccuracies. As will 
be -cen subsequently, however, in spite of the manifest errors 
of the writer, it is not impossible that the account may have 
an historical background. 

The chief inaccuracies of chapter v. of which a brief dis- 
cussinn will be necessary are three in number: 

A. The last kinir of Habylnn is called Helshazzar (a name, 
occurring only in Daniel and in the apocryphal paage, Baruch 
i. 11), and it is clearly stated that he was the son of Nebuchad- 

H. The (pieen mother is introduced at a t'ea-t on the eve of 
the fall of Babylon. 

('. Ir is -tatrd (v. :5h that a Median king, Darius, received 
the kingdom after the fall of the native Babylonian house. 

The first point which should receive attention is the errone- 
ous statement regarding BeWiazzar. The name Belshazzar, 
previou.- to the discovery of the inscriptions was held to have 
been invented by the author of Daniel. (So Von Lengerke, 
'2(>4( Ilitzig. T.'). It is now gem-rally admitted, however, 
to be identical with the Babylonian form /it /.^//->/r>/r which 


has bmi discovered in the cuneiform documents 9 as the name 
of the eldest son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. 10 
Among the various allusions to this prince in the cuneiform 
literature, the most important are those in the two inscriptions 
of LTr, and in the annals of Nabonidus, the chief document 
relating to the fall of Babylon. As the reference in the small 
inscription 11 of Ur is the most complete and consequently the 
most important, I append a translation and transcription. In 
this document Nabonidus speaks as follows : 
Balatu sa ume miquti Life for long days 

ana siriqti s'urqdm give as a gift to me 

u Sa Belsarugiir and cause to dwell 

maru restu in the heart of Belsliazzar 

git libbiya my first born son, 

puluxti ilutika rabiti the offspring of my body, 

libbus suskinma reverence for thy great God- 

d irsd head. May he ne'er incline 

xiteti to sin, 

lale baldtu lisbi. may he be filled with the 

fulness of life. 

In the second column of the great inscription of Ur, 12 the 
king, after describing the restoration of the temple of El><iri'<i 

9 Sir Henry Rawlinson in the Athenceum. March, 1854, p. 341, 'A letter 
from Bagdad.' See also Oppert, ZDMG, viii. 598. 

10 The name occurs in the inscriptions as that of probably two other 
persons : (a) In ' Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,' ii. 60, I. 59, where the 
ruler of the city of the Kisesi, one of the tribes conquered by Sargon, is 
called Belsarugur. (b) The Belsarugur son of Balatu mentioned by 
Pinches in the New York Independent, 1889, Aug. 15, is probably not, 
as he thinks, the son of Nabonidus but of some ordinary person, possi- 
bly of some one named after the king's son (?). For the proper name 
Balatu, see Peiser ' Babylonische Vertrage,' A 7 o. ix. I. 2. (Ztschr. fur 
Assyriologie, vii. 66, I. 2.) 

11 Text, IR. 68, col. ii. 22-23, and Winckler's ' Keilschrifttexte,' p. 43. 
Translation. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, xix. (1861), 195 /.; 
repeated also, 'Records of the Past,' v. 143 ff., Talbot : Oppert, 'Expe- 
dition en Mesopotamie,' i. 262. 

12 ' Keilinschriftliche Bibl.' iii. pt. 2, p. 82. Bettan;nr tndru restu 
. . . $t (9) libbiya suriku umeZu, a irsd xiteti, ' Belshazzar my first 
born . . . the offspring of my body, make long his days, may he not 
incline to sin.' Peiser transcribes in the 'Keilinschriftliche Biblio- 
t h-k ' . . . lu (?) ux bi a = tft (?) libbiya. 


and offering a devout petition to Samas, the sun-god, that the 
sacred shrines may now remain uninjured, closes with a prayer 
for his own well being and with a supplication for BelSa/ruqwr 
his first-born in almost the same words as the above. Why 
this especial mention of the king's son occurs in these inscrip- 
tions of Ur is doubtful. It may be conjectured with Tiele 
(' Geschichte,' 463) that Bd*<i i'u<-u ,> was governor of this 
province in Southern Babylonia and had Ur as his capital, or 
it is possible that Xabonidus attached some special religious 
importance to the cult of the moon-god local in this place. 
The petition here that the kind's son might not incline to sin 
may perhaps indicate that the prince had in some way offended 
the prejudices of the religious classes, who, as is well known, 
supervised the preparation of the inscriptions. From the 
allusion to the prince in the annals" of Xaboiiidus it appears 
that the son of the king was a number of years with the lords 
and army in A.kkad, most probably in the capacity of com- 
mander in chief, while his father was residing in Tenia free 
from the cares of government. It is worthy of notice here 
that in the annals the name BelSarUQUT does not occur, the 
allusion being merely to the -son of the king'; but there can 
be little doubt that the reference is to the tirst-born. 

In addition to these three pa^>age> from the historical litera- 
ture, there are numbers of references to BelZarugur in the 
contract tablets, none of which, however, throw any further 
important historical light on hi> character.'" 

A- /A/x,//-//r///- i> the only king's son mentioned with such 
prominence in the Babylonian inscriptions, 11 and as it is espe- 

13 Annals, col. ii. 5, during the seventh year of Nabonidus, col. 2. 10, 
during the 10th year. See also col. ii. 19 and v!:5. 

14 Compare, however, Nbpl. col. ii. 69, ' Keilinscbrif tl. Bibl.' iii. pt. 
2, 4, mention of Nebuchadnrz/ar : and col. iii. ff- of Xdhitxitlixir, his 
brother. In later documents mention is made of Cainbyses, son of Cyrus, 
as co-regent and king of Babylon during his father's lifetime. (Sec Tiele 
4 Geschichtu,' 483, 484.) In the inscription of Antiochus Soter, VR. 66, 
2."i, (' Keilinschr. Bibl.', iii. pt. 2, 188, 25), mention is made of Seleucus, 
his son and vice-king. Delattre, ' Solomon, Asurbanipal et Baltasar,' 
1883, p. 5, compares in connection with BelSarugur the cases of Solo- 
mon and Sardanapalus, both of whom exercised the vice-regal dignity 
during the life of their respective fathers. 

*See additional note C. 

ciully stated that the lords of the kingdom and army were with 
him (probably under his supervision) in Akkad, it seems highly 
probable that he was a very important personage in the govern- 
ment, a theory which is strengthened by the fact that his 
father, Nabonidus, was more of an archaeologist than a ruler, 
and far more interested in the discovery of a forgotten site 
than in the affairs of his kingdom. Bel&arugur, therefore, 
as some critics have argued, 15 may have really been co- 
regent ; but, as will be seen subsequently, the author of the 
Book of Daniel could not, as they thought, have had this idea 
in mind in calling him king of Babylon. 

Comparing the Belsamtgur of the inscriptions with Belshaz- 
zar of the Book of Daniel, the following important differences 
are apparent. The former was the son of the last king of Baby- 
lon, but never reigned except possibly as co-regent, while the 
latter is distinctly called the last king and the son of Nebuchad- 
nezzar. There can be little doubt that both of these statements 
were made by the author of Daniel in perfect good faith. A 
number of commentators 16 have sought to prove that the Belshaz- 
zar of the Book of Daniel was not necessarily meant by the 
author as the last king of Babylon, but was intended for Evil- 
nierodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar ; a view advanced in support 
of the statement in verse 2, that Belshazzar was the son of Nebu- 
chadnezzar. Following this theory, some considered Belshazzar 
merely a secondary name. (So Ziindel ' Daniel,' 26 ; Niebuhr 
' Greschichte,' 30, etc.) It is difficult to understand, however, 

15 Floigl, 'Cyrus und Herodot,' 24; Andrea, ' Beweis des Glaubeni?.' 
1888, p. 249 ; Smith in the ' Dictionary of the Bible ;' Meinhold, < Disser- 
tation,' 30, n. 2, etc. 

16 So Marsham, 'Canon chron.,' 596^.; Conring, ' Advers. Chron.' 
c. 13 ; Harenberg, k Dan.' ii. pp. 454 ff.; Hofmann, ' Die siebenzig Jahre 
des Jeremia und die siebenzig Jahrwochen des Daniel,' p. 44 ; Haver- 
nick, ' Neue kritische Untersuchungen,' pp. 72 ff.', M. v. Niebuhr, 
' Geschichte Assurs und Babels,' p. 42.; Wolff in the ' Studien und Krit- 
iken,' 1858, p. 684 note a.; Ziindel, ' Daniel,' 33 ; Unger, ' Kyaxares und 
Astyages,' pp. 28, 29. Keil, 'Dan.' 145, although knowing of the dis- 
covery of the name in the inscriptions thought that the Bel^arn^iir, 
son of Nabonidus, of the inscriptions must have been named after Bel- 
shazzar-Evilmerodach son of Nebuchadnezzar ! Quatreniere in his 
' Annales de la philosophic chretienne,' 1838, (Migne, ' Die. de la Bible,' 
ii. j>. :'.<>, note, ls.|5). advanced the theory in support of Jeremiah xxvii. 
7, that Naltonidus. as an usurper, associated with himself lielsh:i//:ir. 

how the author could make Daniel declare to the Babylonian 
monarch that ///* kingdom was about to pass to the Medes and 
Persians, unless the prophecy were intended for the last king. 
There would be little point in such a warning, if it were given 
a generation before its actual fulfillment. AYe may compare 
in this connection the indifference of Hezekiah to the prophecy 
of Isaiah of the ultimate deportation to .Babylon and degra- 
dation there of all the Jewish royal family. In Isaiah xxxix. 
8, He/ekiah said : "(rood is the word of the Lord, which thou 
hast spoken . . . for there shall be peace and truth in ///// 
days." In addition to this it is evident that if the author of 
Daniel did not really regard his BeUhax/ar as the last king of 
Babylon, but as Evilmerodach, he must have omitted without 
mention a period of twenty years between the death of the latter 
and the foreign supremacy; i.e. that between the two contigu- 
ous and cl<ely related statements of the death of Belsha//ar and 
the accession of Darius the Median, the reigns of several kings 
were paed over in silence. That an author should do this 
knowingly without a word of explanation, as sonic writers have 
sought to show. Seems a preposterous >iippo>itioii.' 7 It appears 
perfectly clear that the Biblical author regarded Belshax/ar as 
the la*t king of Babylon before the coming of the Medes and 

son of Evilmerodach and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, in order to 

strengthen his position. The view that Belsha/./ar and Nahonidus 
weiv identical was held by Josephns (Antt., \. 11. '2*. where he states 
that 'Bnltasar' was railed Xaboandelns ' by the Babylonians. (Cf. 
also 'Contra Apionem.' i. <. 20). This idea was followed by J. D. 
Michaelis -Daniel,' 46; Bertholdt, 'Daniel/ :544 : Bleek, Kirms, Heng- 
st en berg. Havernick, 'Daniel.' p. 172: Kwald < Ji-srli.'. v. <S5, note; 
Herzfeld, 'Gesch.', i. Io4 : Browne, ' Ordo Saecloruin,' l<s. 

Sulpitius Sevems. -Hist.", ii. 6, considered Belshazzar a younger 
brother of Evilmerodach. both being sons of Nebuchadnezzar. 

Scaliger (see ' Isagogicoriini chronologiffl canonum libri tres.', iii. 
}i. 190,) and Calvisius, who were followed by Ebrard, ' Comm. zur Offen- 
baruiig Johannis/ \^. and Delitzscli 'Real Encycl.', iii.'M72, identitied 
him with Laborosoarchod (Ldba&imarduk), son of Neriglissar. 

11 (.;/'. Ziindel and Kranichfeld 'Dan/, 25, 28, who believed that Bel- 
shazzar was Evilmerodach. and explained this silence regarding the 
intervening period and the connection of two statements so far apart, 
by supposing that they were brought together because the latter was 
the sequence of the former ! 

As remarked above, certain critics have held the view 
that because /i<-l#<ii-nrnt' may have been co-regent with his 
father, the Biblical writer, knowing this, gave his Belshazzar 
the title of king. A conclusive answer to this has been given 
bv Professor Driver, 'Introduction,' 3 xxii., where he states 
that there are certain contract tablets published by Strassmaier 
and bearing date continuously from the reign of Nabonidus to 
that of Cyrus, which show that neither Belshazzar nor Darius 
the Mede (supposing the latter to have been historical) could 
have received the title of king in any capacity whatsoever. 
If Belshazzar really had been co-regent, however, we would 
not expect to find him with the unqualified title 'King of 
Babylon ' without any further explanation. Cambyses, the son 
of Cyrus, was undoubtedly co-regent and bore the title King of 
Babylon during his father's life-time, tut in the contract which 
dates from his first year it is expressly stated that Cyrus was 
still ' king of the lands.' This statement should be contrasted 
with Dan. viii. 1, where reference is made to the third year 
of 'Belshazzar, King of Babylon,' without any mention of 
another over-ruler. Had the author of Daniel really believed 
that Belshazzar was co-regent it is reasonable to suppose 
that he would in some way have qualified the title ' King 
of Babylon.' 

Furthermore the statement that Belshazzar was the son of 
Nebuchadnezzar shows conclusively that the historical knowl- 
edge of the author of Daniel was considerably at fault. Certain 
commentators have endeavored to prove that this statement may 
be in accordance with the facts, i. e. that ' son ' here is to be trans- 
lated ' descendant ' or ' grandson.' It is of course perfectly true, 
as I )r. Pusey has remarked, that DN and p (Aramaic *U) are 
used, not only of the actual father and son, but also of the grand- 
father or grandson, and ancestor or descendant in general. 1 " 
The way, however, in which Nebuchadnezzar is referred to 
in the fifth chapter shows plainly that the author could have 
had no knowledge of the intervening kings, but considered 

mpare Pusey, 'Daniel,' p. 346. There is no distinctive word 
Hebrew or Aramaean for grandfather or grandson. In later 


Nebuchadnezzar as the actual father of Belsha//ar. In the 
t fit'*f place, tlie narrative of chapter v. follows directly on the 
chapters concerning Nebuchadnezzar and begins with the un- 
qualified assertion that Belshazzar was the son of that monarch ; 
and ,sv/v>/^////, the remark of Belsha/zar in v. 13, 'so thou art 
Daniel .... whom the king my father brought from Jiuhea, 1 
would be ambiguous if the king were referring to his grand- 
father or an ancestor. In this case we would expect the repe- 
tition of the name Nebuchadnezzar to indicate to which 'father' 
the king was alluding. But even if the words * father' and 
'son' of the fifth chapter really were u>ed for 'grandson' and 
'grandfather,' there is no proof that I><l*<i I-HCU r was in any way 
related to Nebuchadnezzar. 19 Nahunidus. his father, was the son 
of a nobleman. No&ubalatsuiqbi (see ' Keilinschr. Bibl.' iii. jrf. 
'2. IMJj I. 6), and was probably a leader in the conspiracy against 
his predecessor. Ijilmxi- M<i r<l L'. 'As far as is known, he was 
not related to any of the preceding kings. Had Xabonidus 
been descended from Nebuchadnezzar he could hardly have 
failed to boast of such a connection with the greatest IJabylo- 
nian monarch, yet in none of his inscriptions does he trace his 
descent beyond his father. Some scholars have tried to ob- 
viate the difficulty by suppo>ino- that Xabonidus, in order to 
strengthen his dynasty, married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, 
and that in this way BelSarugUT was the great king's grandson, 
a theory which in the absence <>f record> cannot possibly be 

19 Auberlen. D;iiii( 1.' i>. ir>. thought that Belshaczar was called son of 

Nebuchadnezzar, just as Oinri was considered by the Assyrians as 
father of the house of Israel. ' Father." however, cannot be used of 
the unrelated, predecessors, as I'n^ry i Daniel. :54?i sought to show. 
\Vh.-re\er it is used in this connection, as in the above riled case, it is 
an error as to the real relationship. The passagi- in Sargon which 
Pusey cites in support of his view, believing that Sargon was no rela- 
tion to the preceding kings, is very doubtful, and probably does not 
contain the words x<trni <tln'i/<i. -the king, my father.' Cf. Winckler's 
Sargon,' ii.. xiii., but also Tiele ' Gesch.', 254, 255, rem. 2. 

ote that Bertholdt, 'Daniel' 344, Bleek, Kirms, Havernick, 
'Untersuch. 7 72, Hitzig, 'Dan.', 73, Srhrader ' Jahrbuch fur Prot. The- 
ologie,' vii. 629, are all agreed that the author considered Belshazzar 
the son of Nebuchadnezzar. 

Tlu 1 similarity of name and the facts, p'rxf, that the historical 
I Id *<i i> ur HI' of tlie inscriptions was the son of the last king of 
IJabylon, wliile the Belshazzarof Daniel is represented as being 
himself the last king, and, wiHu'lly, that it has been established 
quite lately, as will be seen below, that Belsarugur, son of Na- 
bonidus, probably met his death at the time of the capture of 
Uabylon, in partial agreement with the Biblical account con- 
cerning Belshazzar, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 
son of Nabonidus is the original of the king in the Biblical 
account.' 21 

The first historical inaccuracy of the fifth chapter is, there- 
fore, the erroneous statement concerning the name and ances- 
try of the last king of Babylon. It should be remembered 
that the value of the Book of Daniel, which nowhere pretends 
to be an accurate account, but is rather a political pamphlet 
written with a certain object in view, is by no means impaired 
by this inexact treatment of history. The force of the story 
would have been materially weakened had the author known 
and made use of the names of the kings intervening between 
Nebuchadnezzar and the last king. The whole point of the 
fifth chapter, as brought out in the mysterious sentence, is a 
comparison between the great Nebuchadnezzar, the real founder 
of the Babylonian monarchy ; the insignificant last king who 
had allowed the reins of government to slip from his feeble 
hands ; and the coming stranger people who should divide 
between them the empire of Nebuchadnezzar.. 

The second inacuracy of the author in the fifth chapter of 
Daniel which should be noticed at this point, is his introduc- 
tion of the queen-mother, i. e. the mother of Nabonidus, into 
the story. According to verse 10 the queen entered the hall 
and suggested that the Jewish prophet Daniel be called to 

21 Talbot. ' Records of the Past,' v. 143, doubts the identity of the Bib- 
lical Belshazzar with the BeUaru^nr of the inscriptions, supposing that 
the account in Daniel is told of some other person with this name, 
\\hich he asserts to be a common one. As the name Bel^triirur occurs 
only twice in the published inscriptions of another than the son of 
Nabonidus (see above note 10 to this chapter), until the hypothetical 
'other person" be discovered it is certainly consistent with good judg- 
ment in view ol the reasons just given to regard Hi-lsttrncin' son of 
Nabonidus and the Belsha/zar of Daniel as identical. 


interpret the mysterious writing. There can he little doubt 
that the author was referring to the (jiieen-dowager, the mother 
of the last king of Babylon. The mother of Nabonidus, how- 
ever, died in the ninth year of his reign (see Annals, col. ii. 13), 
just eight years before the occupation of Babylon by Cyrus, so 
that her presence at a feast held towards the close of the reign 
of Nabonidus would be clearly impossible. It might be argued 
that the reference in ch. v. may be to the wife of Xabonidus, 
the mother of BelSarugur, but, as we have seen, there is little 
doubt that the author of Daniel regarded Pelshazzar (K<-lxui'n- 
<"/} as actually king and knew nothing of Nabonidus; so it 
seems only possible to assert that he considered the queen 
alluded to in this verse as the mother of the reigning monarch. 

The /////v/and last historical inaccuracy of the fifth chapter 
of Daniel is the assertion in verse -U that a Median King- 
Darius " received the kingdom " after the end of the native 
IJahylonian dynasty. It is well known that Habylon was cap- 
tured by Cyrus the Persian, who. some time previously, had 
obtained possession of Media and its King Astyages. It is evi- 
dent too. from Daniel i. *1\ ; x. I, that the Biblical writer \vas 
perfectly aware of the existence of ( 'yrns. I'Yom his introduc- 
tion of a Median Darius directly after the fall of Pelshaz/ar; it 
must be concluded that the author of the IJook of Daniel 
believed in the existence of a Median king between the Baby- 
lonian and Persian dynastic>. 

The fact that in no other scriptural passage" is mention 
made of any Median ruler between the last king of Babylon 
and Cyrus, and the absolute silence of the most authoritative 
ancient authors regarding such a king, have cast serious doubt 
on the accuracy of the Book of Daniel in this particular. 
Various attempts have been made, however, to vindicate the 
historical character of this Darius the Median."" The opinion 

-- See Isaiah, xliv. ff. Compare also the legend of Bel and the Dragon, 
I. and the Greek translations (LXX ;md Theodotion) of Dan. xi. 1, 
where the name Cyrus is Mihstit nted for that of Darius. 

23 Note in this connection Josephus, Antt. x. 11, 4, followed by 
Jerome on Daniel v. 1 : vi. 1. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi. torn. v. 651, 657). Jose- 
phus stated that Babylon was captured by Darius, who was the son of 
. \st\a-vs and had another name ainon.u, the (Jreeks. The following 

has IK-CM very generally advanced that he was identical with 
('ya.xaro. son of Astya<j;es, mentioned in Xenophon's Cyro- 
jmidia," and in support of this theory reference has been made 
to the lines of ^Kschylus, Perm, 762-765. (So Hitzig, 77; 
Keil, 165.) 

MijSo? yap r)V o 7T/3WT09 rjye/jiGiv arparov 
"AXXo? & eiceivov Trat? ro'8' epyov rjvvo-e 
<&peves yap avrov OVJJLOV olaKoarpdtyovv. 
T/3tVo9 S' cur avTOv Ku/oo?, evSal/jLcov avijp, K. T. X. 

writers attempted to prove the historical character of Darius the Mede ; 
Delitzsch, ' Real Encyclopadie,' iii. ed. 1, article * Daniel ;' Prideaux, 
'History of the Jews,' i. 98, 154, 172, etc.; Havernick, 'Daniel,' 205; 
Hengstenberg, ' Daniel,' 48, 327 ; Kranichfeld, 'Daniel,' 44; Lengerke, 
'Dan.', 232; Lenormant, ' Magie,' 535; J. D. Michselis, 'Dan.', 52; 
Vaihinger, ' Real-Encycl.', s. v. Darius; Venema, ' Historia Ecclesias- 
tica,' ii. pp. 309^.; Ziindel, 'Dan.', 37. Compare also Jahn 'Biblical 
Archaeology,' transl. Upham, ed. 5, p. 289 ; Browne, ' Ordo Saeclorum,' 
p. 175 ; Schulz' ' Cyrus der Grosse,' Stud, und Krit. 1853, p. 685 ; Zock- 
ler, ' Daniel,' 34. With regard to other less important opinions as to 
Darius the Median, some authorities considered him identical with 
Astyages. Among the holders of this opinion is Syncellus, ' Chronogr,' 
p. 232, where he said "Nafiovvqfiog 6 Te'Aevraio^ fiaai7tev(; M.^6uv, 'Acrvd-yw Trap' 
avrolf; %,ey6f4evo t 6 avrbg 6s K.OL Aapeloc; 'Aaaovf/pov. Cf. also Marsham, 
Niebuhr, etc., and more lately Unger, ' Kyaxares und Astyages,' pp. 
26-28. Others sought to show that Darius the Median was a near 
relative of Astyages. Compare Quatremere, ' Memoires sur Darius le 
Mede et Baltasar,' 380-381, who considered him Astyages' nephew. 
Ibn Ezra (Hitzig, ' Daniel,' 76), (see IE on Dan. vi. 1) thought that he 
was the father-in-law of Cyrus. Klein, Schulz, op. cit., 684, and 
Ziindel regarded him as a younger brother of Astyages. Ebrard 
Scheuchzer, Scaliger, in Appendix of his ' De emend, temporum ' and 
in ' Isagogicorum chronologies canonum libri tres.' iii. pp. 291 and 315, 
Petavius, and Buddeus, (see Zockler, 34) thought him identical with 
Nabonidus. Conring, ' Advers. Chron.', c. 13, Bouhier 'Dissertation 
sur Herodote,' 29, Harenberg, ii. pp. 434^., regarded him as identical 
with Neriglissar. Hengstenberg, * Daniel,' 328, identified him with 
Bahman, who according to Persian tradition (Mirchond) dethroned 
Belshazzar and appointed Cyrus ; but cf. v. Lengerke, Daniel,' 224#\ 
etc., etc. 

24 Cf. Xen. Cyrop., i. 5, 2. RpoUvro^ 6e TOV %p6vov 6 filv 'AcrvdyiK ' V T i<; 
airo&vJjffKei, o di- Kva^dpt^ 6 TOV ' Aarvdyovc 7rdi, Tf/ fit- Ki'por //-//r/jof 
, r//i' iianiAt-idv a% TUV Mrffiuv. 

For the opinion that Darius the Mede was identical with Cyaxares, 
Bee, lor example, Havernick, 'Dan.', 206; Keil, 'Dan.', 165; Kranich- 
fVM, 'Dan.', 44; Lengerke, 'Dan.', 220; Ainhv/i, ' Hcwcis d. Glaubens,' 
xxv. 57, McinhoM Disscrtalioii/ Mft'.. and others mentioned above. 


The TT/awTO? rjyefijicov (rrparov was supposed to refer to 
AsryMi-vs, while the "son" of the following line was under- 
stood to be the Cjaxares mentioned in the Cyropaedia. As a 
further proof of identity, the age of the Darius of Daniel, 
.sixty-two years, has been cited as a point of agreement with the 
account that Cjaxares, having no hope of a male heir, being 
too old, gave Cyrus his daughter and made him his successor. 25 
It may be well in this connection to compare the data of Xen- 
ophon regarding the last Median kings with those of Herodo- 
tus on the same subject. It should be noticed, ,///'*,, that 
Herodotus ends the Median dynasty with Astyages, while 
Xenophon adds a son, Cyaxares. X mW///, according to Her- 
odotus Cyrus was only related to the Median house by being 
the son of Astyages" daughter. Xenophon adds to this that 
Cyrus married the daughter of Cyaxarcs (his liist cousin), and 
inherited with her the Median empire. 77///v/7y, according to 
the account of Herodotus, Cyrus took part in the rebellion 
instigated by Ilarpa^us and con<|iieivd his grandfather Astya- 
ges, capturing Media. Herodotus' account of the conquest of 
Babylon contains no reference to any Median prince. Xeno- 
phon relates, however, that Cyrus, after quarreling with Cyax- 
aiv>, became reconciled to him and gave him royal honors after 
the Babylonian campaign. Herodotus, as will lie seen from 
the above, had no knowledge of any Median king between 
Astyages and Cyrus, nor of any special Median occupation of 
Babylon, and in this respect his account i> substantiated by the 
cuneiform records. It should be noticed that neither Bcro^sus 
nor any other ancient author knows of a Median rule after the 
fall of Babylon. 1 " In the annals of Xabonidus and the Cvrns 
Cylinder, the two cuneiform documents relating to the fall of 

25 See Cyrop. , viii. 5, 19 andc/. Havernick, ' Dan.', 206. Some commen- 
tators who identified Xenophoii's Cyaxares with the Median Darius, 
explained the silence of Herodotus and other writers iv<;;inlm.u- 
Cyaxares by supposing that the latter reigned too short a time to have 
given his name to history ; but this does not of course explain the 
silence of Xenophon himself in the Anabasis about the fabulous 

126 For the account of Berossus see below, ch. 3, p. 46. Compare in this 
connection Ktesias, Pers.. ii. .1 : IHodonis Siculus, ii. 24, etc. 


, no mention whatever occurs of any ruler of Media 
between Astyages and Cyrus (cf. Annals ii. 1-4 and note), nor 
of any king of Babylon intervening between Nabonidus and 
( 'vrus. On tlie contrary it is stated that Cyrus became master 
of Media by conquering Astyages, and that the troops of the 
Kinu' of Persia, capturing Babylon, took Xabonidus prisoner. 
( 'yrus himself entered the city nine months later. 

In view of these facts it is difficult to see where an interme- 
diate reign can be inserted, either in Media, directly after 
Astyages, or in Babylonia after Nabonidus. It should be men- 
tioned, moreover, that the Cyaxares of the Cyropaedia is not 
recorded to have ruled in Babylon, but merely to have received 
royal quarters in that city. (Cyrop., viii. 5, 17.) An identifica- 
tion between Darius the Median and the Cyaxares, son of Asty- 
ages, of Xenophon's romance, is, therefore, open to the serious 
objection that the existence of this latter person, contrary to 
all other accounts, is extremely doubtful. It should be remem- 
bered that the narrative of the Cyropaedia resembles the Book 
of Daniel in that it was not written for an historical but for a 
moral purpose. It is enough to quote Cicero, who remarked 
(Ail Qttintumfratrem, Lib. i. 1, 8), " Cyrus ille a Xenophonte 
noii ad historiae fidem scriptus est, sed ad effigiem justi imperii." 
It is perhaps a little harsh to characterize Xenophon's work, 
with Niebuhr as an 'elenden und lappischen Roman.' (' Yor- 
triige liber alte Geschichte,' i. 116.) With respect to the peace- 
ful succession of Cyrus to the Median Empire, Xenophon, in 
his more historical work, the Anabasis, iii. 4, expressly stated 
that the Medes succumbed to the victorious arms of Cyrus. 
The Cyropaedia, therefore, representing the peaceful passage of 
the empire of the East from Astyages to Cyaxares his son, and 
from the latter to Cyrus, can only be giving some fanciful em- 
bell ishment. 27 

'-'" Some commentators in a mistaken effort to confirm the Biblical 
record have deliberately confounded the names of Darius, Cyaxaivs. 
MIM! Xerxes. Thus, Havernick, 'Dan.', 210; ' Untersuchungen,' 78, 
and /odder, 'Daniel/ 34, thought that Astyages was identical with 
Ahasnerns ; juidKeil, 'Dan.', 167, thought that Darius and Cyaxares were 
related in meaning. Hengstenberg, 'Daniel,' 51, and Niebuhr, ' Kleine 
Seln it'ten/ "2\r t . believed in tlie identity of tlic names Cyaxares. Astyages. 


It is probable that this Cyaxares of the Cyropaedia arose from 
a confusion of facts. The father of Astyages was the famous 
Cyaxares, and Xenophon, by a confusion of history, must have 
believed, when writing his romance, that Astyages preceded 
Cyaxares, and that the latter was the last king of his dynasty 
(compare Delattre, 'Medes/y>. 170). Even had this fabulous 
second ( 'vaxares existed, however, an identification between him 
and Darius the Median, would be impossible, owing to the differ- 
ence of the names of their respective fathers. The latter is 
called in chapter ix. 1, the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) a name 
which could never be considered the same as Astyages. 

The attempt to identify, the Darius of Daniel with the King 
Darius mentioned in the Armenian Chronicle of Kusebius"" can 
hardly be regarded as satisfactory. According [,, this passage 
it i> stated that after Cyrus gave the last king of Babylon the 

province of Carmania, Darius drove 1 out some one from that 
region; probably Xabonidus. 

There is every reason to believe that this Darius is no other than 
Darius llystaspis. i Kven Pusey, * Daniel,' l.V.t, had to admit 
that this was po-sible; compare also Kranichfeld, ' Daniel/ -l.\ 
v. Lcr.gerke, ' Daniel/ '2'2*.) It is possible that Xabonidus, the 
last king of Babylon, whom Cyrus dethroned in .V>S P>. C., and 
according to the record of I>erou> (see below, note "> to chapter 
third) sent to Carmania, may have remained in that province 1 
until the time of Darius H\>taspis. The Persian king, perhaps 
enraged by some attempt of Xabonidus to rebel, may have 
expelled him from his province as the account of Megastlienes 
seems to state. The idea can hardly he entertained that there 
is an allusion here to an earlier Darius. 

and Ahasuerus. In his 'Gesch. Assurs und Babels,' p. 45, Niebuhr 
confused the name Astyages, which lie considered as a title of honor, 
with Cyaxares and Darius. Von Lengerke, 'Daniel,' 237, thought that 
Cyaxares and Ahasuerus wnv identical. Ziindel, 'Daniel,' 36, 
Kranichfeld, ' Dan.', 46, Pusey, ' Dan.', 159, and Andrea, 58, saw no 
difficulty in the difference in name ! Unger, ' Kyaxares and Astyagcs.' 
29, thought like Niebuhr that Darius was a throne name, a sort of 
title, etc. 

e Armenian Chronicle, Ed. Schoene, i. 41 (Latin translation), 
quoting from the .'irrmmt of Ahydonus from Megasthenes. 


The argument based on the authority of Suidas and Harpo- 
cration,^ that the coin //^/v7', was called, not after Darius 
Hystaspis, as many have supposed, but after an older monarch 
of this name, probably the Median Darius of Daniel, 30 is also 
in view of modern researches extremely doubtful. 

The name of the coin, oapeitcds (Hebrew JiD""nN) has been 
derived from the name Darius, 31 but it is extremely probable 
that there is no connection linguistically between the two. 
Putting aside all other difficulties, the form Sa/oettfo?, if consid- 
ered an adjectival development from Aa/oeto?, has no analogy. 
As Georg Hoffmann has pointed out, Zeitschrift fur Ass yr., 
ii. 53, forms like KepapeiKos, Ei)/3o//co? come from ice pa pew, 
EuySoev?, etc., and not from an original -eto?. The K in 
Sapetrcos he believes, therefore, is not of Greek origin. 3 " The 
derivation, however, which Hoffmann suggests (op. cit.,p. 56) 
from ' Dar-ik ' = ()& , from Dar, gate ; i. e. the royal gate, has 
been retracted, Phoenician Inscriptions, Gottingen, 1889, p. 8. 
(Note that Hitzig, ' Daniel,' p. 77, derived the name from the 
Sanscrit darcana, darcamana mirror, appearance and Len- 
gerke, ' Dan.', 229, from ^K^ or Uj> ' lord, king,' i. e. the 
royal coin par excellence.} 

Bertin. Proceedings Society for Biblical Archeology r , Feb. 5, 
1884, p. 87, mentioned that a contract of the twelfth year of 
Nabonidus contains the word dariku which he believed 
might be the original of the name of the coin. This 

29 Suidas said, Aapeinoi . . . OVK airb Aapeiov TQV Eepgov vrarpoc, aAA' a0' 
ertpov nvb<; TrahaioTtpov paaihetjs uvofiaaftrjaav. See Hultsch. ' Metro- 
logicorum scriptorum reliquiae,' vol. i. p. 335, 21 ff. Compare also 
Harpocration, sub. v., Schol. ad Aristoph., 1 ff., EccL, 602, who remarked 

de AapeiKol ov%, of ol TrAeiovf VOJUI^OVGIV, OTTO Aapeiov TOV Zepgov Trarpo^, 
. paaiMw;. See Hultsch, ' Metrol.' vol. 1, p. 311, 1. 2-5 ; 
pp. 315, 1. 17 ; p. 348, 1. 20. 

30 See Cook's 'Bible Commentary,' vi., 314 Andrea, op. cit., 49. 
Hengstenberg, ' Daniel,' 51, Hjlvernick, ' Untersuchungen,' 78, etc., etc. 

31 See above note 29 on Harpocration, and compare Gesenius, ' Thesau- 
rus,' 353, de Lagarde, ' Abhandlungen,' 242, quoted by Hoffmann, ZA. 
ii. 50. who regarded Aapm-o? like A/;////>//r as a by-form of Darius. 

3 - For the extreme improbability of the derivation of this word from 
I In- i i;m ic Dnrius, see his entire article, Ztschr. fur AMI/I-., ii. 49-56. As 
:irly as I l,-'i\ ornirk, Untci s.'. 7H, n. :!, 1888, the difficulty of such a sup- 
was IVIt. 


however. M-ems to In 1 tin- name of some agricultural product. 
(So Tallqvist, ' Sprache der Contracte Xabnnaids/ y>. 66. For 
the word cf. Nbk. 4o->. 7, Strassmaier. w Habylonische Texte'; 
<hn'ik<i< Xbk. :)4T. 1<>; t<J/'t'k<(-'.-?>~\ also * Alphabetisches 
Worterverzeichniss, 3 AV 1 ( .19.) It appears hardly possible. 
therefore, to connect it with the later SapeiKos. While the 
true derivation of the name of the coin lias probably not yet 
been discovered, its connection with the name Darius appears 
no lono'er possible. The assertions of Snidas and Harpocration. 
therefore, that the coin was not named from Darius Ilystaspis. 
1m t from some older monarch must thus fail to the ground, 
and with it the hope of an identification of Darius the Median 
with an older kin" 1 of this name. 

If there is no room in history for this Median kin^ of the 
Hook of Daniel, and it appears coii>e<juently that such a ruler 
could not have existed, but that Media, passed from Asty; 
and Habylon from Xabonidus, to ( 'yrus, how is it possible to 
account for this interpolation of a Median rule in the Hook of 
Daniel ( 

The author evidently believed that Habylonia passed into 
Median hands before it reached Cyrus. The theory is not 
tenable that Darius the Median \va> a Median prince to whom 
Cyrus had u'iven Babylon as a reward for hi> service-. (So \"\<r- 
nolles, -Oeuvres,' ii. .")lisj. followed by Leiiormant. 'Manual 
of the Ancient History of the Kast,' j>. 4 ( .M>). Nor can we 
suppose him to have been a sort of satrap or vice-kin-:. (So 
Andrea, />.//>. .").") ; Pu>ey. Danii-1,* HJn. , The author of Daniel 
represents Darius with full kindly powers. Darius divides the 
empire into one hundred and twenty satrapies (ch. vi. 1); lie 
>i_u - ns a royal decree making it unalterable law (ch. vi. 7. 8 : 
he issues a proclamation to all peoples, nations and lanniiaiivs 
that dwell in the earth (ch. vi. *2:>} ; and the author dates accord- 
ing to his i-eiu'ii and refers nowhere to any overlord (ch. ix. I). 

The question may be divided into two heads: /'"/-A-/, Why 
does the author of Daniel believe that the Medes held Baby- 
lon before the Persians ( S,-roin/. Why does he call his 
Median kiii^- by the familiar name of Darius ( 

A. In order to answer the Hist (juestion it seems necessary 
to a'ive a very brief outline' of the Median history. Accord- 


ing r<> flic record of Herodotus the Median kingdom was 
founded by Deiokes. If the chronology of the Greek historian 
is at all correct, Deiokes must have founded his kingdom, as 
Tide has pointed ont ( k Geschichte,'^. 408), during the reign of 
Sennacherib in "Assyria (705-681 B. C.). (For an historical 
examination of the foundation of Media see Delattre, ' Medes,' 
p. 1L>!>/'.) 

This whole question, however, is very uncertain and has little 
bearing on what follows. The son of Deiokes was Phraortes, 
who is really the^first historical king of Media. (According to 
Herodotus he must have reigned from 640 until 625 B. C.) 
Following the account of Herodotus, not content with ruling 
over the Medes alone, Phraortes marched against and subju- 
gated the Persians. Then, at the head of the combined forces 
of Persians and Medes, he set out to conquer Asia, passing 
from one people to the other. Finally he attacked the Assy- 
rians, at that time isolated by the defection of their allies, and 
not only suffered defeat but was killed during the expedition, 
having ruled twenty-two years. His reign coincides with the 
last twenty-two years of that of Asurbanipal. As Tiele remarks 
( k Geschichte,' 408), it is certainly striking that this latter 
king never followed the example of his predecessors in attack- 
ing Media. The probable reason was that the power of 
Phraortes was too great to admit of such an attempt. If we 
accept the chronology of Herodotus, the year of Phraortes' 
attack on Nineveh, 625 B. C., coincides with the time of the 
death of Asurbanipal and the defection of Babylon from the 
Assyrian rule. In spite of her difficult position, however, 
A vria seemed still to have possessed sufficient power to cast 
off the Medes for a time. Phraortes was succeeded by his son 
( Vaxares, who completed his father's work ; and under this mon- 
arch the Median power reached the summit of its greatness. 
According to the account of Herodotus (i. 73, 74), Cyaxares care- 
fully reorganizing the Median army ; dividing the spearmen, 
archers, and cavalry into separate troops, inarched with his 
entire force against Nineveh, intending, in vengeance for the 
defeat and death of his father, completely to destroy the 
city. Ills tiisl. -ie^-e. owing to the Scythian irruption into his 
kingdom, he was forced to raise', but h'nalK, shaking oil' the 

barbarians, he besieged Nineveh anew and at length made an 
end of the Assyrian power. 

According to the account of Berossus, which may be trust- 
worthy, the Babylonian king, whose son Nebuchadnezzar was 
married to the daughter of the Median chief, helped the Medes 
in this siege. (See Tiele, ' Gesch.', 410.) It should be noticed 
here that Berossus and the authors dependent on him did not 
know of (Vaxares, but believed that Nineveh was conquered 
by Astvaii'es. According to the account of Abydenus, how- 
ever. the king of Babylon />//.sv//o.v.v,,/' (Nabopolassar), having 
married his son Nabukodrossoros to the daughter of the Median 
chief Ax<I<i/mh\ proceeded <ilon> against Nineveh. 33 

About the details of the fall of Nineveh there is no record 
either in Herodotus or in the cuneiform inscriptions, the last 
Assyrian kings of whom we have any document being Jx///-- 
etUAlAni-ukinni and x///-xW/'-/x/-////. (See He/old - Literatur,' 
\'2'2). IIero(lotus, i. 1<>7, merely mentioned the capture of 
Nineveh by the Medes. giving no detailed account, while in the 
Ayrian inscriptions there i> absolutely no reference to the 
event. Kqiially silent are the documents of Nabopolassar, the 
father of Nebiichadne/zar and lirst independent king of I'aby- 
lon, in which, in view of the statement of IJerossus, ju>t men- 
tioned, we might expect to tind some allusion to the overthrow 
of Assyria. 

Winckler's opinion. ba>ed on the silence of I lerodotus /. c. 
regarding the participation of the Babylonians in the >iege <>f 
Nineveh, was that the Mcdes captured the Assyrian capital 
alone. This view has been rightly objected to by Lehmann, 
' Samaseumnldn,' ii. is."). An argumentum ex silentio'is at 
poor reasoning. Moreover. Tiele has pointed out that the 
continuation of the Babylonian power would have been impos- 
sible had Nabopolassar remained neutral in the war between 
Media, and Assyria (see Ztw/u 1 . j'">' Assyriologie^ vii. p. 111). 

is the Armenian form of Astyages, see note to Annals, 
ii. 2. For this and fuller ancient opinions regard ing t lie part of the 
Babylonians in the fall of Nineveh we may compare Delattre, ' Les 
Chaldeens jusi,iiVi la formation de 1'Empire de Nabochodonossor,' and 
Tiele, ' Geschichte,' 414 and 421. 

The account of Berossue then, regarding tlie Babylonian and 
Median alliance against Assyria seems to commend itself to 
good judgment. 

At any rate the chief facts are certainly clear : Nineveh was 
destroyed, so thoroughly that Xenophon, when crossing Asia 
in 401 B. C. with the ten thousand, mistook the ruins of the 
great city for those of Median towns laid waste by the Persians. 
(See Anabasis, iii. 4;iv. 12, and compare in this connection 
Zephaniah ii. 13-15.) It seems generally recognized, and the 
opinion of almost all antiquity (the untrustworthy records of 
Abydenus excepted), that the Medes played the chief part in 
the ruin of Assyria, and in this historical fact I believe lies the 
key to the solution of the problem of Darius the Median. 

The interpolation by the author of Daniel of a Median rule 
in Babylon directly after the fall of the Babylonian house 
may possibly depend on a confusion between the story of the 
fall of Nineveh and the account of the overthrow of Babylon. 
Nineveh fell at the hands of the Medes. Some authors might 
differ as to the name of the Median prince who destroyed it, 
but it seems to have been generally recognized by the ancients 
that the Medes captured and overthrew the city. Babylon was 
conquered by Cyrus the Persian, who had but a few years pre- 
viously subdued these same Medes to his standard. What 
more natural 'than that an author writing at a much later 
period and having no historical, but rather a moral object in 
view, should confuse the accounts of the fall of the two great 
cities of the ancient world ? The author of Daniel, probably 
influenced by the story of the fall of Nineveh, as a more vivid 
fulfillment of the prophecy of the mysterious writing, makes 
a Median ruler receive Babylon after the overthrow of the 
native dynasty, and then mentions later the historical Cyrus. 
We may suppose that the Biblical writer believed that Cyrus 
succeeded to the empire of Babylon on the death of the 
Median Darius. 

Ii. The second question, however, still remains unanswered. 
Why did the author of the Book of Daniel give to his ficti- 
tious Median king the familiar name of Darius '. 

As early as the eleventh century of our era the view was 
advanced by the Benedictine monk, Marianus Scotus 


(quoted Bertholdt, t Daniel,' 844), that Darius the Median was 
Darius Hystaspis, and, on examining certain points in the 
account of Daniel, it will appear that this is probably the 
correct solution of the difficulty. In chapter ix. 1, Darius the 
Median is said to be the son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), and it is 
stated that he established one hundred and twenty satrapies ; 
Darius Hystaspis was the father of Xerxes and according to 
Herodotus, iii. 89, established tn\'/it// satrapies. Darius the 
Median entered into poi>sion of Babylon after the death of 
Belshazzar; Darhis Ilystaspis conquered Babylon from the 
hands of the rebels. (So Herodotus iii. 153-160.) It seems 
clear from this comparison, and in view of the impossibility of 
reconciling with history the existence of a Median ruler of 
Babylon, that the name Darius in Daniel is due to a confusion 
with that of the son of Hystasp 

Justus Xenoplion made (Vaxares the son of As ty ages, so 
the writer of Daniel must have made his Darius the son of 
Xerxes, and, in addition to this, transferred in a distorted form 
certain facts of the resign of Darius Hystaspis to the reign of 
Darius the Mede. (The idea a> stated by Friedi'ich Delitzsch, 
in the '('ahver Bibellexicoii.' 1:17. !"*, that the 1 original of 
Darius the Median may have been Cyrus' general /}//><//// 
(Gobryas), wlio captured Babylon, seems very unsatisfactory). 

Darius the Mede appears therefore to have been the product 
of a mixture of traditions ; on the one hand, the story of the 
capture and destruction of Nineveh by the Mede>. sixty-eight 
years before the fall of Babylon, may have contributed to the 
historical confusion of the author's mind and influenced him 
to insert a Median rule in Babylon before the Persians; while 
on the other hand the fame of the great Darius Hystaspis and 
of his capture of Babylon from the rebels may have led to the 
choice of the name Darius ' for the Median interloper, and 
induced the Biblical writer to ascribe in a vague way certain 
events of the life of the forme] 1 to the reign of the latter. 30 

34 Compare Beers, ' Richtige Vereinigung der Regierungsjahre,'p. 22, 
Bertholdt, Daniel, 'p. iv., Lengerke, ' Dan.' 230, and lately Kamphausen, 
' Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Geschichtsforschung.' p. 29. 

86 A similar confusion of persons is seen in the well known Greek 
h-gcnd concerning the fiery dea tli of &&rda,nvp&luB(A$urbanipal). Prof. 


It Kvms apparent tlierefore that the interpolation of Darius 
the Median must be regarded as the third and perhaps the most 
ir luring inaccuracy of the fifth chapter of the Book of Daniel. 

To recapitulate briefly : the assertion that Belshazzar was 
the last king of Babylon, the introduction of the Queen 
Dowager at a feast on the eve of the capture of Babylon, and 
the interpolation of a Median king Darius between the native 
Babylonian and Persian dynasties are all contrary to history. 

Haupt in his corrections and additions to the Akkadische und Sumerische 
Keilschrifttexte in the Zeitschrif t fur Keilschriftsforschung, ii. pp. 282, 
rem. 4, advanced the explanation that this account arose from a con- 
fusion in later tradition between Sardanapalus and his half-brother 
Samassumukin, who having rebelled in Babylon against his brother, 
perished in the flames when the city was captured by the victorious 
Assyrian king. This theory however is not adopted by Lehmann, 
k Samassumukin,' p. 2, who is inclined to believe that the legend may 
have had an historical basis in the fact that Nineveh was destroyed by 
fire, at the time of its capture by the Medes. (?) 



It may well be asked, however, if these inaccuracies treated 
of in the last chapter necessarily show that the account of the 
fifth chapter of Daniel, regarding the miraculous appearance 
of a warning writing during a feast on the eve of the capture 
of Uabylon, is invented, and if it is not possible that there 
may he here an echo of history which can still he detected. 
This (juestion may certainly he answered in the affirmative. 

We have already seen that it is possible to explain both the 
true meaning of the mysterious sentence, and why the phrase 
might have been unintelligible to the hierogrammatists. We 
may ask, furthermore, whether it is absolutely necessary to 
consider the portent a miracle and whether it is not possible 
that the inscription wa> produced by human means. 

Two theories have been advanced as to a possible non-mirac- 
ulous production of the writing: >mne scholars have held that 
it might have been made by loyal servants of the king; others 
have regarded it as the work of conspirators. 

The former supposition which was advanced, for instance, by 
Dertholdt, 1 does not seem tenable, as loyal servants would 
hardly have used such a disrespectful >enteiice with which to 
warn their master. It mu>t he remembered, of course, that the 
symbolical meaning of the pliras<- was not known when this 
suggestion was oifered. 

The second theory, that it might have been produced by 
conspirators against the royal house, has more inherent proba- 
bility.' Judging from the historical accounts of the period, a 
powerful conspiracy must have been concerned in the over- 
throw of the Babylonian power. It may be well, therefore, 
in this connection, before entering on the discussion concerning 

1 Bertholdt, Daniel, p. ?,:>:i. 

- In justice to Bertholdt it should be remarked that he mentioned 
this supposition also as a possible conjecture. 


the character and value of the Biblical account, to state briefly 
flu' history of the fall of 'Babylon, comparing the most impor- 
tant versions. 

Previous to the discovery of the cuneiform inscriptions relat- 
ing to this event, comparatively little could be known accu- 
rately. The chief sources upon which historians were forced 
to depend were the account of Berossus, which Eusebius and 
Josephus took from Alexander Polyhistor, and the narrative of 
Herodotus, i. ISSjf. The statement of Berossus in Josephus, 
' Contra Apionem,' i. 20, is as follows : 3 ' Nabuchodonosor . . . 
fell sick and departed this life when he had reigned forty-three 
years, whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. 
He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, 
and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissar, his sister's hus- 
band, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two 
years. After he was slain, Neriglissar, the person who had 
plotted against him, succeeded to the kingdom and reigned four 
years. His son, Laborosoarchod, though but a child, obtained the 
kingdom and kept it nine months, but by reason of the very 
ill temper and ill practices which he exhibited to the world, a 
plot was laid against him by his friends and he was tortured to 

3 Naftovxofiov6aopo(; . . . einreauv Etf dppuariav fierrjA^d^aro rov ftiov, 
err) reoaapdnovra rpia, rijg 6e Paotheiag Kvpiog kyivero 6 mbg avrov 
Ovrog trpoardg ruv npayfidruv dvouug /cat a<7/lyf, Tri(3ovfav&i<; 
VTTO rov T-rjv dSetyi/v s^ovrog avrov ^rjpty'kiaaoopov dvypE'&q, fiaaihevaag err] 6'vo. 
Merd de rb dvatpedr/vai rovrov 6ia6et;dfj,evo rrjv dp%T/v 6 sTriSovAevoas avriS 
Nqpiyhiaaodpof kBaaifavoev zrrj reaaapa. Tovrov vlbg Aaj3opoGodp%o6o(; s 
fj,ev rf/g fiaadetas iraig hv fj.rjvag hvsa, emflovfev&eic 6e 6id rb 

VTTO r&v fy'ihuv aTrerviuTravia&r}. ' ATrohojusvov 6e rovrov ovve"X&6vre^ ol 
avrti K.OLVIJ r?/v ftaaiheiav TrepiedyKav Jlafiovvrjfiu rivi rwr P/c 
bvri EK rfjg avr^g ETrtavardaeuf . . . Ovaqc; Je r?/g fiaai'Aeiac; avrov kv rcJ 
ETrraKai6eKdr(.) tree TrpoE^eXr/^v&cjf Kvpoz EK rffq Tlepaidoi; /nerd 6vvdjUu<; TroTiTiij^ K.CU 
KaraarpEi}>afj,evo^ rrjv ^onrr/v 'Aaiav Trdaav upuifGEv ETTI rrjq HafivJicJviag. A'ia$6- 
' Xr/.Vo/'jv/fJof ri/v efyofiov avrov aKavrijcag fierd ri/c; fivvdp-uq aal Trapara^'iin--- 
vi>, ?'/rrt/tiri(; ry /laxy aal <j>vyuv bhiyooro$ awK%.ei<r&q ei$ ri/v 'Bopannrijruv ~o/ir. 
Kr/xir >\i ]',n J ,i>'/<~)va Karaha(36fj.evo(; /cat avvrd^ag rd e^u rfft irdhewc, reixn /caracr/ca- 
IJKII. Aid rb "Kiav ai>r(J Trpay/narinr/v /cat dvadJujrov <j>ar//r<ir r//r ~n//r 
: -/ I'x'ipvnrirov KiTO?liopii//cruv rov \<i^ui'rt/^ov. 
avrog r?/v TTO'/ ID/ >i\ !(/,i> r///,' } t--y%eipiaavTo<; avrov 
iin: t hu'i bn-cn'ihtirriitim' ni'TM K(t./>/mr/ai> 

V rn 


death. After his death the conspirators got together and by 
common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, 
a man of Babylon and one who belonged to that insurrection. 
. . . But when he was come to the seventeenth year of his 
reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army, and hav- 
ing already conquered the rest of Asia, came hastily to Babylon. 
When Xabonnedus perceived that lie was coming to attack 
him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle was de- 
feated and lied away with a few of his troops and shut himself 
up within the city of Borsippns. Hereupon (\vrus took I Baby- 
lon and gave order that the outer wall of the city be demol- 
ished, because the city had proved very troublesome, and cost 
him a great deal of pains to take. He then marched to Borsip- 
pus to besiege Xabonnedus. As Naboimedus however, did not 
sustain the siege, but delivered himself up beforehand, he was 
kindly used by ( 'yrus who gave him Carmania as a place to 
dwell in, sending him out of Babylon. Nabonnedus accord- 
ingly >pcnt the rest of his life in that country and there died/ 
(For this last statement concerning the banishment of Nabon- 
nedus to Carmania, cf. also Ku>eb., Fvang. Pnep/ i.\. 4n, 41, 
and k Chron. Arinen.' i. In, the account of Abydenus.) 

Herodotus, i. l*\//'. relates that the King of Babylon, 
Labynetus, the son of the great queen Nitocris. was attacked 
by Cyrus. The Persian king, on his march to Babylon, 
arrived at the river (iyndes a tributary of the Tigris. While 
the Persians were trying to cross this stream, one of the white 
consecrated horses boldly entered the water and. being swept 
away by the rapidity of the current, was lost. Cyrus, exas- 
perated by the accident, suspended his operations against Baby- 
lon and waited the entire summer in satisfying his resentment 
by draining the river dry. On the approach of the following 
spring, however, he marched against Babylon. The Babylon- 
ians, as he advanced, met and gave him battle, but were defeated 
and driven back into the city. The inhabitants of Babylon 
had previously guarded against a siege by collecting provisions 
and other necessaries sufficient for many years' support, so 
that Cyrus was compelled to resort to stratagem. He accord- 


inglv' placed one 1 detachment of his forces where the river first 
enters the city and MI i other where it leaves it, directing them 
to go into the channel and attack the town wherever the passage 
could he effected. After this disposition of his men he with- 
drew with the less effective of his troops to the marshy ground 
. . . and pierced the hank, introducing the river into the lake 
(the lake made by Nitocris some distance from Babylon, see 
Herodotus, i. 185), by which means the bed of the Euphrates 
became sufficiently shallow for the object in view. The Per- 
sians in their station watched the better opportunity and when 
the stream had so far retired as not to be higher than their 
thighs they entered Babylon without difficulty.' The account 
goes on to say that, as the Babylonians were engaged in a fes- 
tival, they were completely surprised by the sudden attack and 
unable to defend the city which thus fell an easy prey to the 

The two cuneiform documents relating to the fall of Babylon 
which have shed a wonderful light on this period of the world's 
history are the Cyrus Cylinder and the Annals of Nabonidus, 
both of which are translated and explained in APPENDIX I. 
The former was discovered in 1879 by the workmen of Hor- 
muzd Rassam in the ruins of Qacr at Babylon, a hill which, 
according to the opinion of Rassam, covers the remains of a 
great palace, i. e. that of Nebuchadnezzar. The tablet called 
the i Annals of Nabonidus ' was obtained by the British Mu- 
seum in 1879 from Spartoli and Co. The place where it was 
found is unknown, although Mr. Pinches declares decidedly 
that the document came from Babylon. It seems to belong to 
a series of annalistic tablets which were collected and pre- 
served by the Achaemeiiian kings. (See further, APPENDIX I.) 
The Cyrus Cylinder is a highly laudatory account of Cyrus's 

T?/V crparir/v diraoav k% kfifiokiig TOV Trorafiov ry t-f r>/v TTO/UV 
htt'i <>-in\ii a'rrir rt/r ~o'/ tor rd^ac, erzpovc; ry e^isi e/c rf/c, Trd/Uof 6 Trora/JOf, 
-(.> nT/KiT(,'> ora.i> <}/(i3(iroi> TO pn:tipov WuvTdi } ; -iw/nw i-nih'(Li rnrrij tr ri/r ~u//r. 
Ofrr^i r//cf/r iu Mi-it ravra Trapaiveaac, airfaavve arror m<v T<,> a^'pi/K.) -or (rrpuror. 

. . . rov yiij> -oTiifini' <h<'.>/>i<x/ i-r;a}ti]<.>i> tr r//r '/iuvijV iormir t'/ot -TO a/> \-ti/or 
nii<>i>oi< <\i<ifi<iTin< tirai i~oi/jm . . . ol Utpfiui o/7Tf/> rrrTu _\<i-<> ';-' arrt.t rorTt.i hard 
-n /lirtipov TOV EvtypjjTeo) Trorafj.ov vKOvevoaTijKoToc ni'tipl ('.>r n- iiinor /i///>t>r iia'/ inrn 
/,// KdTii rorro imjinur /, r/// 1 


glorious entrance into Babylon, evidently written by some 
scribe under tbe Persian rule, while the so-called Amials is a 
concise historical summary of the events of the reign of 
Xabonidus until the accession of Cyrus, a paragraph being 
devoted to the events of each year. 

Before passing on to the history of the advance of the 
Persians on Babylonia the following facts should be noticed. 
After ryru>. king of the unimportant state of Anxdn* accord- 
ing to the record of the Annals, bad gotten possession of Media, 
the Persian prince finding himself transformed from the ruler 
of an insignificant province to the leader of a great kingdom, 
turned bis eyes westward. Here Xabonidus the king of Bab- 
ylon, wbo had at first regarded the defeat of bis old enemies 
the Medes" as a direct intervention of the gods, now becom- 
ing alarmed at the sudden rise of this new power concluded 
an offensive and defensive alliance with Lydia and Kgypt, a 
league which should certainly have been sufficient to check the 
advance of the Persian forces. Lydia was compelled, how- 
ever, by the swift movements of the enemy to defend herself 
without waiting for her allies. Cyrus, after totally routing the 
Lydian army at Pteria. 7 proceeded directly against Sardis, the 
capital, which lie captured without difficulty and there estab- 
lished hi> permanent headquarters in the northwest. The Per- 
sian king did not hasten at once against Babylonia, Ms second 
powerful rival, but. after settling affairs in Lydia and ap- 

' For the chronology <>l Cyrus' reign, his ancestry and kingdom, see 
Appendix I, note to Cyrus Cyl., 1. 21 and in Annals, col. 2. I. lo. 

1 The .Aledcs during the reign of Xabonidtis had attacked and 
destroyt d tli' city of Harran and the temple of Sin. Of. VR. 64. 12. 

7 See Herodotus, i. 76. Note that Justin. Hist., i. 7. makes Cyrus 
begin the war with Babylon before that with Lydia. interrupt in'.; his 
conflict : however, in order to conquer Cnesus who had offered aid to 
Babylon. Sulpicius, His!., ii. in. passed directly from the Median con- 
quest to thai of Babylonia. -CrOBSUS, king of Lydia, whom Cyrus cap- 
tured, was according to Herodotus, i. !~>. the brother-in-law of Asty- 
ages. Cyrus Heated him kindly and gave him the city of Barene near 
Kcbatana as a residence, according to Ctesias, with five thousand 
riders mid ten thousand bowmen as retinue. 


pointing guvi'rnnrs" over all the conquered provinces, returned 
to Echataiw. 

The following historical account *of the approach of Cyrus 
(in Babylonia and the fall of that empire may be gathered 
from the- Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder. 

The record of the Annals, which must have been very com- 
plete, is unhappily so mutilated that comparatively little can be 
learned about the early period of the invasion. We may con- 
jecture from a very broken passage (col. ii. I. 21-22) that the 
Persians may have made an invasion from Elam against Erech 
in the tenth year of Nabonidus (see note to passage, APPENDIX 
I), but this is by no means certain. Where the text treating 
of the actual conquest of Babylon is legible, the matter seems 
practically to be decided. It is stated that Nabonidus entered 
the Temple of Eturkalama (Annals, iii. 6), most probably to 
seek help from the gods. We may then conjecture, the 
translation is very doubtful, that a rebellion against his 
authority took place on the lower sea. The god Bel was 
apparently brought out with a solemn religious festival (col. 
iii. 8. 9. 10), and, as a last resource, numerous deities were 
brought to Babylon as a protection to that city. This, 
says the chronicler of the ' Cyrus Cylinder,' so infuriated 
Marduk, the god of the city of Babylon, that he decided to 
deliver up Nabonidus to Cyrus (see Cyl. 10^. and 33, 34). 
In the month Tammuz (539 B. C.) Cyrus offered battle at Opis 
and apparently also on a canal (?) Salsallat, which evidently 
resulted in his favor. (See note to Annals, col. iii. I. 12, 
APPENDIX I.) The Babylonians, defeated on all sides and dis- 
gusted with their feeble king, surrendered Sippar to the Per- 
sians on the 14th of Tammuz (539-538 B.C., see Annals iii. 14). 
As this city was the key to the whole sluice region it was 
important for Cyrus to get possession of it before he could 
besiege Babylon successfully. By breaking the dams at Sippar 
in case of need, the water could be cut off from all the plain. 
As we have seen, according to the account of Herodotus just 

8 See Herodotus, i. 153. The post of governor of Sardis was one of the 
moht important positions in the Persian Empire. This official seems to 
have held the precedence over the neighboring satraps. Compare 
A.uf s&tze zur altpersischen (irschirhtr. p. -.M. 


given above, Babylon was said to have been captured by the 
device of drawing off the water of the Euphrates (cf. also 
Xenophon, Cyropsedia, vii. 5, 15), but the short space of time 
intervening between the capture of Sippar and Babylon seems 
to show that no such device was resorted to. Two days after 
the capture of Sippar (16th of Tammuz), the gates of the 
capital itself were opened to Gobryas, 9 the governor of 
Gutium and commander of a section of the Persian army, 
who formally took possession of the city in Cyrus's name. 
(See Annals, iii. 15, and Cyl., I. 17, 'without strife and battle 
he let him enter into I'abyloii.') 

NaboniduB, who had tied to Babylon after the capture of 
Sippar, was taken prisoner and held to await the coining of 
Cyrus. Here again, owing to a doubtful text, we are reduced 
to conjecture. The Babylonian party seem to have wished to 
use the temples as storehouses for arms (?), for the troops of 
Gobryas surrounded them and guarded them carefully. (For 
other opinions as to the meaning of this passage see note to 
col. iii../. IT, Annals. A iM'Kxmx I.) 

Four months later, on the third of Marche>van, Cyrus him- 
self entered the city of IJabylon and derived peace to all, 
appointing his general (iobryas governor of the city and send- 
ing bark to their own shrines the gods which Nabonidns had 
brought to Babylon. (See Annals, iii. iM. and Cyl. :i.'5-34.) 
The Persian monarch was received with great rejoicings by 
the nobles, priests and people, who hastened to declare their 
allegiance (Cyl. Is). He then assumed formally the title of 
king of Babylon and vf Sumer and Akkad (Cyl. ^U), receiving 

1 In the record of the cylinder no mention is made of Gobryas ; it is 
simply stated that Cyrus and his army entered the city without battle. 
See Cyl., 16, 17. The Annals, however, give more details of the conquest 
;m<l. moreover, are a strictly impartial account. It is much more flat- 
tering to Cyrus to attribute to him, as in the Cylinder, all the glory of 
the capture and not mention any of his generals. It is interesting to 
notice that Xen., Cyrop., vii. 5, 24 //'.. has also preserved the account of 
the capture of the city by Gobryas, making him, however, a great 
Assyrian leader, who, desiring vengeance of the king of Babylon for 
the murder of his only son, allied himself with Cyrus. According to 
Xenophon, Babylon was taken by the two generals. (Jobryas and 
( Jadates. 


the homage of the tributary kings of the westland. 10 (Cyl. 28.) 
It is probable, in accordance with the account of Berossus, 
ii'iven above, that Cyrus dismantled to some extent the fortifica- 
tions of Babylon soon after its capture. That he cannot 
utterly have destroyed the defences is evident from the fact 
that the city stood repeated sieges during subsequent revolts; 
one under Cyrus, two under Darius Hystaspis, and one under 
Xerxes. 11 Judging from the assertion of Jerome (Comm. on 
Isaiah iii. 23 ; ed. Yallarsi, IV. 180), that the walls had been 
repaired and renewed as an enclosure for a park, they were 
probably at no time completely destroyed. 

The causes which led to the fall of the Babylonian dynasty 
and to the transferring of the empire to the Persians are not 
difficult to determine. 

Ndbupaliiqur, the father of the great Nebuchadnezzar, was 
the first independent king of Babylon after the overthrow of 
Assyria. After an uneventful reign of twenty-one years he was 
succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar, the real founder of the 
em pire of Babylon. He was not only a great warrior the terror of 
whose arms was felt as far as Egypt, and who, by his conquests 
made Babylon the political centre of a mighty empire, but also 
a lover of art and architecture, who prized his reputation as the 
restorer of the capital far more than his military fame. (For 
the glories of his reign see Tiele, ' Geschichte,' 441-4:54:.) As 
remarked above, Nebuchadnezzar was the greatest name in 
Babylonian history, the culminating point of Babylonian glory. 
After his time the kings were weak, incapable characters, 
judging from the account of Berossus, not even able to protect 
their own crowns. The last King, Nabonidus, though better 
than his immediate predecessors, was the creature of a conspir- 

10 Gaza alone in the land of the Philistines seems to have refused 
tribute and offered resistance ; see the citation to Valesius Polyb., xvi. 
10, quoted by Noldeke, Aufsatze, 23. n. 2. 

11 See G. Rawlinson, Herodotus, 425, n. 5. For the second revolt of 
I i. i. by Ion, see Herod., iii. 153-160, the story of Zopyrus. A curious work 
regarding Zopyrus is that of Joh. Christoph. De Zopyro Babylonios 
fallente, 1685. 


acy against his youthful predecessor ZabaSi-Mardufc. 1 * Nabo- 
nidus was probably not of royal blood, as it is stated in the 
record of Berossus that he was a man of Babylon, and he calls 
himself in his inscriptions, the son of a noble. 

It will appear, therefore, that the seeds of decay were ripen- 
ing fast, as early as the beginning of the reign of this king, 
who, had he been a different character, might have delayed the 
final catastrophe at least beyond his own lifetime. But Xabo- 
nidus, as is evident from the tone of the records of his reign, 
was by nature a peaceful prince, whose taste lay not in govern- 
ment or conquest but in archaeology and religion.- architecture. 
His inscriptions are one long list of temples repaired" and pious 
duties performed. Tiider his feeble sway the vast and hete- 
rogeneous empire, lacking the strong hand of a compering 
ruler to punish defection and protect his subjects from for- 
eign attacks, 14 naturally began to fall to pieces, until finally the 

1-2 Compare the account of Berossus given above and the record of 
Abydenus quoting Megasthenes as saving that Labassorucus' being 
destroyed, they made v tea -pon/^^n-ra <>'/ or^ir king hav- 

ing no claim to this rank : see Euseb. Praep., Evang., ix. 40, 41 ; Euseb., 
Chron. Armen. i. c. 10. 

Tin- succession of Babylonian Kings giveo by Hcmssus is quite cor- 
rect and agrees not only with the I'toleni.-ean Canon but with the 
cuneiform inscriptions. The list of kings with their approximate 
dates is as follows : 

Nabu-pal-ugur, 625-605 B.C. 

Nabn-kuduiTi-ucur. G<4-5<;2 B.C. 

Aniil-Marduk. 561-560 li.C. 

Nergal-sar-ucur. .V> !_.")<; B.C. 

Labasi-Marduk between the Mth of Am. .">(>, and the 12th of 
Duzu. ">.")."). 

X:ibfi-ii;Vid, r,,-)} -538 B.C. 

The Ptolemaean canon omits LabaAi-Marduk son of Nergal-sar-ugur, 
probably owing to his short reign of but nine months. Only those 
kings are recorded who governed for longer than one year ; see Floigl, 
' Cyrus und Herodot.' p. 70. According to Ahydenus, Labasi-Marduk 
was a boy not older than twelve years. See Floigl, op. fit. 25, and com- 
pare in this connection, Tiele, Gesch. 424, n. 2. 

13 Hagen in the Beitrage zur Assyriologie, ii. 237, note, gives a com- 
plete list of the temples repaired by Nabonidus. 

* l4 The king seems to have been unable either to prevent the attack of 
the Medes on Harran or to punish them for their destruction of the 
city. (See above note 6 to this chapter). He was equally powerless 
to resist the expedition of Amasis of Egypt against Cyprus by which 
several cities were captured. (See Tiele, Gesch. 468). 


Babylonian name in Western Asia, became more a shadow 
than a reality. 

Toward the close of his reign Nabonidus showed himself 
oven more incapable than in his earlier years, for while devot- 
ing especial attention to the repairing and maintenance of the 
t em pies, he entirely neglected the defences of the capital, 
choosing to live in Tema 15 rather than in Babylon, and evidently 
leaving all military matters to his son, who, as shown above, 
was probably in command of the army. Practically no steps 
seem to have been taken either to prevent the advance of the 
Persians or to meet them when they came, so that when Cyrus 
arrived he probably found a people discontented with their 
king and ready to exchange his rule for a firmer sway. The 
fact that both Sippar and Babylon were taken by the Persian 
forces ' without battle ' certainly seems to show that there 
existed a powerful faction in Babylonia in league with the 

It is possible that the priests of Marduk in the city of Baby- 
lon were especially instrumental in bringing about the final 
blow. We have already noticed that the priesthood was prob- 
ably hostile to Belsaruqur the crown-prince. It can easily 
be imagined how, disgusted with the king's neglect of the reg- 
ular offerings and finally infuriated with his infringement on 
the jurisdiction of their god in introducing strange deities into 
Babylon, they would naturally have cast their influence in favor 
of a change of rule. 16 It must be remembered that the priests 
exercised the most powerful influence in Babylonian affairs, 
being even stronger than the royal house. The inscriptions of 
every sort point to the supremacy and importance of tne reli- 

15 For Tema see note col. ii., 1. 5, Annals, Appendix I. 

10 Nabonidus was certainly not a reactionary heretic who tried to intro- 
duce a Sin cult; (so Floigl, Cyrus und Her., p. 2), first, because the king 
did not confine his attention to Sin (cf . the list of the temples repaired, 
Hagen, Beitr. ii. 237 note,) and secondly, as Tiele has pointed out 
(Geschichte, 460), it was the priests of Marduk who inspired him to 
repair the temples and to give attention to the cults of other deities. 
< '>IM pare V R. 64, 16, where Marduk reveals his will in this connection 
to Nabonidus in a dream. The insult to Marduk which turned the scale 
against the king was his criminal slothf'ulness about protecting Babylon 
and his introduction of other gods into Mardnk's own city. 


gious classes, one of the most constant themes of these docu- 
ments being the frequent allusion to buildings of temples, tem- 
ple gifts, restoration of offerings, etc. This prominence of the 
priestly classes is to be explained by the fact that they were the 
custodians of all knowledge. The arts of writing, astronomy, 
and magic were their peculiar provinces. It will readily be 
understood, therefore, that their favor or disfavor would turn 
the scale in an attempt against the reigning dynasty. In addi- 
tion to this it may be supposed that the large Jewish element 
which had been transplanted to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar 
and which could not be expected to feel especially we'll disposed 
toward the Babylonian dynasty, probably played a considerable 
part in the h'nal conspiracy. Their reasons for so doing were 
of course not identical with those of the rebellious Babylonians. 
It may be supposed that the native Babylonians, glad at any 
price to be rid of their incompetent ruler, were forced to make 
the best of a foreign supremacy, while the rcligi>u> element 
among the captive .lews, to whom permission to return to Pal- 
estine may have been promised beforehand, 17 certainly regarded 
Cyrus as the Anointed of Jehovah, who would carrv out His 
will in every ropect and utterly dotroy Babylon and its (Jods, 
a hope which Cyrus was wise enough not to realize. Bearing 
in mind, therefore, the>e facts it seems by no means unnatural 
to assume that such a warning as that described in Dan. v. 
might have been caused by the agency of conspirators, and 
that a basis of historical truth may underlie the account. The 
tone of the fifth chapter, however, seems to show beyond doubt 
that the Biblical writer considered the portent as a miracle sent 
from (iod, to warn the impious king of his impending punish- 
ment. The Maccaba'an author of Daniel accordingly makes 
use of the account against Antiochu> Kpiphano. 

That a festival, as mentioned in the Book of Daniel, actually 
took place on the eve of the capture of Babylon is not at all 

11 Compare the enthusiastic prophecies regarding the destruction of 
Babylon and the references to Cyrus the shepherd of God, Isaiah, xiii. 
xiv. xliv. 28, xlv. ; Ps. 137.; Jer. 1-li. Cyrus permitted the Jews to 
return to their old home in the first year of his reign 537 B.C. See 
Ezra, i. The prophecies of the destruction of Babylon were certainly 
not carried out, the only one fulfilled to the letter being that regarding 
the return of the Jews. 


improbable.'" Although we have no parallel account of such 
an event in the inscriptions, 13 it certainly seems rather significant 
that botli Herodotus and Xenophon allude to a feast at this time. 
As we- have seen, according to Herodotus i. 191, Babylon was 
captured while the besieged were off their guard during a festi- 
val. Xenophon also, alluding to the capture of Babylon, says 
that Cyrus had heard that a feast was going on. (Cyrop. vii. 
5, 15.) Of course the allusion in Jeremiah li. 39, referred to 
in Kawlinson's Herodotus, vol. i. 424, is merely general and 
cannot be understood as referring to a final festival. 

It is now demonstrated by the cuneiform inscriptions that at 
least the name Belshazzar, 20 not found elsewhere in the Old 
Testament, is based on correct tradition, notwithstanding the 
errors into which the author fell regarding the person of the 
last king. Although undoubtedly wrong in considering Bel- 
shazzar the last king of Babylon, the writer of Daniel may have 
been influenced in this particular by tradition. Bdsarugwr was 
the son of the last king, and was probably in command of the 
army and actively concerned in the conflict with the invading 
Persians. We cannot doubt that he was a person of great polit- 
ical prominence in the empire, and it is even possible that he 

18 It may not be uninteresting to note, that Havernick, Dan. 176, fol- 
lowing Vorstius, Exercit. Acad. 4 identified this final feast of the Book 
of Daniel with the 2a/cdz which, according to Athenseus (Deipnosoph. 
xiv. 639) corresponded to the Saturnalia. 

19 In the Annals of Nabonidus, iii. 8, mention is made of a religious 
festival (the New Year's feast) which took place probably about twelve 
months before the capture of the city. This. Andrea, ' Beweis des 
Glaubens,"88, p. 257, etc., believed to be the festival of the Book of 
Daniel ; a highly improbable theory. 

20 It is interesting to note that the Babylonian proper names in Daniel 
seem to be for the most part genuine, although of course it cannot be 
supposed that the author understood their meaning. In fact we know 
from his explanation of the name Belteshazzar that this was not the 
case. See note b to verse 12, Appendix II. Compare in this connection 
the names Arioch, Belteshazzar, and Abednego which are traceable 
to a Babylonian origin, and see further Friedr. Delitzsch in the Pre- 
face to Baer and Delitzsch, Text of Ezra, Noli, and Daniel. It is 
instructive to observe here the difference between the genuine names 
in Daniel and the spurious character of those in the book of Judith, 
showing tin- sup< riority of the tradition followed by the author of 

may have been possessed of ni<>re influence than his father. If 
this were the case, a legend making the crown-prince the real 
king is easily to be explained. 

The author of Daniel seems to be approximately correct 
concerning the death of Belshazzar. The Biblical Belshazzar 
was slain on the eve of the capture of the city by the Persians, 
and it is extremely likely from a ne\v reading of a mutilated pas- 
in the Annals of Xabonidus (iii., 1. *2.-\\ that B<'1* I'ln-u , 
the king's son met his death soon after the capture of Babylon 
by ( 'yru>'s forces. If the reading which I have adopted of this 
passage of the Annals be correct, it is probable that after the 
capture of Habylon, Helshazzar with a remnant of the royal 
forces made a last despairing resistance which was crushed 
by Cyrus's general (iobryas, and that the patriot prince thus 
met his death at the hands of the invader." The Annals 14-0 on 


to say that a solemn mourning wa> then instituted, probably 
by order of ( 'yrus himself. 

Of course' nothing certain about this event can be known 
until a duplicate text be discovered which shall supply the mi>s- 
ing words of the mutilated passage. If the interpretation 
here given is correct, the agreement of both Herodotus and 
Xenophon. as well as of the book of Daniel, that the la>t king 
of Babylon was slain at the time of the capture of the city, 
may be a pel-version of this account of the death of the king's 
son. It is intLTe>ting to note here that the author of Isaiah 
xiv. It), clearly expected the destruction of the last king of 
Babylon with the overthrow of the city. AVe may conclude, 
then, that in the ca>e of the Hook of Daniel, the tradition 
which the author followed in calling the last king IJelslmzzar, 

-'It should be noticed that both of tlx- Babylonian rebels against 
Darius Hystaspis g;m themselves out to be Nebuchadnezzar, son of 
Nabonidus. This certainly seems to show that at that time Belsaruqur, 
the first born son of the king, was generally known to be dead, as 
otherwise his name would have served as a more promising catchword 
lor rebellion than that of a younger prince. According to Behistun, 1, 
16 ; 3, 13 ; 4, 2, the names of these two rebellious chiefs were Nadin- 
tabel, son of Amri. who seems to have been for a short time successful 
in his rebellion, as there are a few contracts dating from the first year 
ot Ins n-i-n (Iloinmel. CJ-esch. 7*7. n. 1). and Arakh an Armenian son of 
Handikes. Nothing is known of this Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus. 


may have arisen from the prominence of the son of Nabonidus 
during his father's reign, and perhaps especially towards its 
close, in the government of Babylon ; and that the statement of 
IJolslmzzar's death about the time of the capture of Babylon 
possibly had its origin in the death of the king's son at the 
hands of the Persians. 

The preservation of the name Belshazzar, found only here 
in the Old Testament, and now confirmed by the cuneiform 
inscriptions, the approximately correct statement regarding 
his death, and the striking agreement just mentioned of the 
record of Herodotus and the Biblical account would seem to 
show, therefore, that the story of the appearance of the mys- 
terious sentence may not altogether lack an historical element. 

The Book of Daniel loses none of its beauty or force, because 
we are bound in the light of modern criticism to consider it a 
production of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, nor should 
conservative scholars exclaim because the historical accuracy 
of the work is thus destroyed. If the book be properly under- 
stood it must be admitted that the author made no pretence at 
exactness of detail. To assert, furthermore, with some excellent 
Christian divines that with the Book of Daniel the whole pro- 
phetic structure of the Old Testament rises or falls, is as illogi- 
cal as the statement of Sir Isaac Newton, that he who denies 
Daniel's prophecies denies Christianity ! If we consider that 
these 'prophecies' were never intended to be more than an 
historical resume, clothed for the sake of greater literary vivid- 
ness in a prophetic garb, it is difficult to see how such a con- 
clusion affects the authenticity of utterances of other authors 
which may really have been meant to be predictions of the 
future. If viewed in the proper light, the work of the writer 
of Daniel can 'certainly not be called a forgery, but, as men- 
tioned before, merely a moral and political pamphlet. It 
should certainly be possible for intelligent Christians to con- 
sider the book just as powerful, viewed, according to the 
author's intention, as a consolation to God's people in their 
dire distress at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as if it were, 
what an ancient but mistaken tradition has made it, really an 
accurate account of events belonging to the close of the Baby- 
lonian period. 



It was generally recognized by the ancients that the Book of Daniel 
was an authentic production. The references in the New Testament, 
(Matt, xxiv. 15 ; Mark xiii. 14, referring to Dan. ix. 27 and xii. 11) ascribe 
the book especially to Daniel. (/;/'. also Josephus, x. 11, 7.) In Antt. xi. 
Josephus relates the oft-cited fable that the Prophecies of Daniel 
were shown to Alexander the Great <m his entry into Jerusalem. 

The first known writer who doubted the authenticity of the Book of 
Daniel was the Neo-Platonist, Porphyrins, (A.I). :>0-li, who in his great 
work of fifteen books directed against the Christians (\<r,<>/ KOTO 
X/>/(7r/(iri,n-) devoted the whole twelfth book to an attack on Daniel, 
which lie declared to have been originally in Greek, the work of a 
Jew of the time of Antiochns Epiphanes. Tin- works of Porphyrius 
were all collected and burnt by orders of the Emperors Constantine 
and Theodosins. so that his views have descended to posterity only 
through the works of Jerome, who attempted to refute his arguments. 
According to the statement of .Jerome, he was also answered by 
Methodius, Apollinaris of Laodicea and Kusebius of (';esarea. 

According to Origen. the pa.uan Cel>us i> said to have expressed a 
doubt concerning the truth of the occurrences described in Daniel. 
The following commentators are among those who regarded the Book 
of Daniel, either wholly or in part, as belonging to the time of Antio- 
chus Kpiphanes : Collins, "Scheme of literal Prophecy considered," 
London. 17215: Semler. ' Untersucliun-eii des Canons." iii. 50.'); Cor- 
rodi, " Yersuche fiber verschiedene in Theologie und Bibelkritik ein- 
BChlagende Gegenst&nde," Berlin. 17s:: : Versuch einer Beleuchtung 
der Geschichfe des ji'idisclien und Christlichen Bibelkanons.' vol. i. 
Halle, 1792, j>i>. l^/.: Eichhorn : ' Einl. in das A. T.', 3 und 4 Ausgabe ; 
Bertholdt. 'Daniel;' also the commentaries of Kirms, 'Commentatio 
historico-critica,' Jena, 1828; Redepenning. 1x33; von Lengerke, ix;r>: 
Evvald ; Hitzig ; 'Bunsen, ' Gott in der Qeschichte,' i Teil. lsr>7. }>/>. 
o<2. .")! l, .140 : Li'tcke, Yersuch einer vollst/indigen 1'Jiileitung in die 
Offenbarung Johannis,' ii. Aufl.; Bleek. Kinleitung ': Riehm, ' Ein- 
leitung,' ii. 292 : Strack in Zockler's ' Handbuch der'Theolog. Wiss.', i. 
. 164, 165, (see also Herzog, Real Encyclopaedic, 2 vii. 419) ; 
Scldottmann, 'Compendium der Alttestamentlichen Theologie,' 1W7 
and 1889 ; Reuss., ' Geschichte des A. T.', 1890, pp. 592 /.; C. A. Briggs, 
' .Messianic Prophecy," 411 /.; and Driver, ' Introd.', p. 467. 

Among the defenders of the authenticity of the book should be 
mentioned : Liiderwald. Die Ii ersten Capitel Daniels nach historischen 
Grimden gcpri'ift und berichtigt, 17H7 ; Jahn. 1880; Dereser, 1H10 


(answering Be-rtholdt) : Pa roan. Tnstitutio Interpret, v. i.: Royaards, 

Over den (leest I'll het belang van het Boek Daniel,' Hag. 1821 ; Sack ; 
Ackermunn, 1*2!): Ih'iigstenbi'rg. 1831; Havernick (answered by Droy- 
sen, Geschichte d>r Hellenen, vol. ii. p. 346) ; Ziindel, 1861 ; Hilgenfeld, 
I*r,:', : Kranirhfeld, 1868; Keil ; Franz Delitzsoh in Real Encyclopaedic, 
(first Edition) ml. iii.: C'aspari ; Pusey : Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens, 

p. 241 /.: Di'isterwald, 'Die Weltreiche und das Gottesreich nach 
den Weissagungeii des Propheten Daniels,' 1890, (reviewed by Siegfried, 

Thi'ologisrhe Literatur zeitung,' 10 Jan. 1891) etc., etc. 

It should be mentioned that Franz Delitzsch, in the second edition of 
Il<T7<><;'s 'Real Encyclopa3die,' vol. vii. pp. 469-479, (1878) had greatly 
modified his views regarding the time when the book of Daniel origi- 
nated. He was not inclined to deny the possibility of a MaccabaBan ori- 
gin, and even said, (p. 471) that the book, considered as an apocalyptic 
work of the Seleucidan period, had more claims to canonicity, than if 
it were a product of the Achsemenian epoch distorted from its original 
form by later hands. 



The Book of Daniel must be regarded as a unit. Some critics, how- 
ever, have believed in a separate origin for the first six chapters. 
Thus Sack, Herbst in his ' Einleitung in's A. T.' 2 Theil, 2 Abteilung, 
pp. 104, 105, and Davidson attributed the second part of the work to 
Daniel, but regarded the first six chapters as an introduction to the 
visions written by a later Jew. Eichhorn (' Einleitung,' 3d and 4th edi- 
tion.) believed that ch. ii. 4-vi. were written by one author and ch. vii.- 
xii. with i.-ii. 3 by another. The fact that from ch. ii. 4, through 
ch. vii. the book is written in Aramaean has not unnaturally influenced 
some scholars to believe that the Aramaean portions have a separate ori- 
gin from the other parts of the w^ork. Zockler, for example, following 
some of his predecessors, such as Kranichfeld (' Daniel,' p. 4), con- 
sidered the Arama3an sections as extracts from a contemporary journal 
in the vernacular, while Driver 'Introduction,' 482, 3, although seeing 
the strong objections to such a view, remarks with some caution that 
the theory of a separate origin for these parts deserves consideration. 
Meinhold, 'Dissertation, 'p. 38 and ' Beitriige zur Erklarung des Biiches 
Daniel.' :>2, 70, believed that the Arania3aii portions were in existence 
from the time of Alexander. We should compare in this connection 
Strack (in Zockler's ' Handbuch.' i. 165,) who inclines to this view, 
although admitting that the book at present forms an indivisible 
\vln ,le. (See also Lenormaiit ' Magie,' Germ. ed.. 527, 5(J5). This idea 
should he kept (|iiite distinct from the more extreme theory of La- 
L':mlc, ' Mittheiliiiigen.' iv. :'>5I (1S ( .)1), who, commenting on the opinion 
of. I. I). Mirh.-i'lis" ' Orientalische und Kxe^etische Hihliolhek,' ii. (1772), 


p. 141, that the Book of Daniel consisted of a number of parts of 
separate origin, remarked that the bilingual character of the work is 
an evidence that it is a 'Biindel von Flugblattern.' (See also Gott. 
Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1891, pp. 497-520, particularly 506-517.) This view 
of Lagarde's was really a repetition of that of Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' 
pp. 49^f., which is now generally rejected. (See Bleek, ' Einleitung,' p. 
415. Delitzsch. 'Real Encyclopadie,' vii. 2 471, Reuss 'Geschichte,' 599, 
and lately Kamphausen, 'Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Geschichts- 
forschung ' (1893), p. s. ) 

No view that the Book of Daniel is the production of more than one 
author is consistent with the uniform character of the entire work. 

It must be remembered that the Aramaean chapters are not altogether 
pure narrative. Chapter ii. for example, although narrative in form, 
is devoted to the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, 
and contains, as shown above, substantially the same prophecies as 
w<- find in the purely apocalyptic chapter vii. in the second part 
of the work. It will suffice to cite one other striking point of agree- 
ment between the two sections. The allusion in chapter ii. 43, to the 
mixing of iron and clay is clearly to be understood of the alliance men- 
tioned in ch. xi. 6. 17 between the Seleucida 1 and the Ptolemies. (See 
Kamphausen, op. cit.,p. 8.) 

It must not be forgotten that, chapter vii.. the beginning of the sec- 
ond part, is certainly as apocalyptic in character as any of the follow- 
ing sections. Mori-over, the natural division of the hook is undoubtedly 
after ch. vi.. so that it' the difference of language were the sign of a 
sepal-ale origin for these sections \ve would expect ch. vii., the begin- 
ning of the distinctly apocalyptic portion to he in Llehrew, which, how- 
ever. i> not the case. The . \ranuean seventh chapter belongs as 
completely to the following Hehrew apocalyptic parts as the Hebrew 
first chapter is essentially part of the following Arama-an narrative 
sections, tin this connection see Driver. Introduction.' 4N'J.) There 
car. lie little doubt that the complete interdependence of all the chap- 
ters is such that the entire book must lie regarded ;is the work of a 
single author. 

Various attempts have been made to explain the sudden change of 
language in ii. 4. Some commentators thought that Aramaean was the 
vernacular of Babylonia and was consequently employed as the lan- 
guage of the parts relating to that country. (So Kliefoth. ISfJS. Dan.', 
/>. 11. and Keil. 'Dan.'. 14.) Such a view is of course no longer tenable, 
as the cuneiform inscriptions now show that the Babylonian language 
was in use until quite a late date. The latest connected inscription 
is that of Antiochus Soter rjso-'jr.n H. Q.), published VR. 66, and 
translated by Iviser in Schroder's ' Keihnschriftl. Bibl.', iii. 2, 136. 
Xoldeke's theory advanced in his In-ocJuirc Die Semitischen Sprachen,' 
pp. 41 ff., that the Assyrian language died as a spoken idiom shortly 
before the fall of \ineveh seems entirely unfounded. Gutbrod refers 
in the Zt'ilwln-iJ't fin- As*///-, vi. '21. to a brick on which was engraved 
in Aram.-eati and Greek letters ,-i proper name of distinctly Assyrian 


character : nfcO"l3"T"lK ^Adadvaitv&xtK. (He was evidently alluding 
to one of the bricks of Tello of which there are some examples in the 
museums of Paris and Berlin. As Dr. Bezold, editor of the Zeitschrift, 
remarked in a foot-note, this inscription has been treated by De Vogue 
and Schrader as well as in the 'Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.' 
See Schrader ' Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,' iii. 2, p. 142, n. 1.) When 
it is remembered that a living language exercises the greatest possible 
influence on the formation of proper names, this brick, which is unfor- 
tunately undated, would seem to be an evidence, as Gutbrod thinks, 
that Assyrian may have been spoken until Hellenic times. It is there- 
fore of course clear that the Aramaean could certainly not have been 
the vernacular of Babylonia even as late as the time of the author of 
Daniel. As a literary language, indeed, Assyrian may well have sur- 
vived as late as the second century after Christ. (See Gutbrod, op. cit., 
p. 29 jf.) 

With regard to the Book of Daniel, it is equally unconvincing to sup- 
pose with Merx that Aramaean, as the popular tongue of the period 
when the book was written, was used for the narrative parts, and 
Hebrew, as the more learned language, for the philosophical portions ; 
because ch. i. which is just as much in the narrative style as the fol- 
lowing Aramaean sections, is in Hebrew, while the distinctly apoca- 
lyptic ch. vii. is in Aramsean. 

A third supposition that the bilingual character of the work points to 
a time when both Hebrew and Aramaean were used indifferently is cer- 
tainly strange, as it is very questionable if two languages can ever be 
used quite indifferently. A hybrid connected work in two idioms 
would be a monstrosity. (For this opinion cf. Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' 
p. 15, and later Havernick. Franz Delitzsch, ' Real Encyclopaedic,' iii. 
272, and vii. 2 470, followed substantially the same theory, considering 
the change to be due to the Aramaic answer of the Chaldees in ch. ii. 4.) 

Huetius (' Demoiistr. Evang.', 472, quoted by Bertholdt, 'Daniel,' 
p. 51), believed that the entire work was written originally in Aramaean 
and subsequently translated into Hebrew. In the troubled Seleucidan 
period, he thought that the Hebrew edition was partly destroyed and 
the missing portions supplied from the original Aramaean. This theory, 
although very ingenious, does not, however, commend itself as the 
most satisfactory explanation. 

. Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' v. 2, in commenting on Huetius' view has hit 
upon what seems the best solution of the problem, but unfortunately 
did not adopt it. He remarked, with perhaps a touch of sarcasm, that 
it had not yet occurred to any one to consider the Aramaean text as a 
translation and the Hebrew as the original. In view of the apparent 
unity of the entire work, which Bertholdt did riot recognize, no other 
explanation of the bilingual character of the book seems possible. 
The book was probably written originally at the time of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, all in Hebrew : but for the convenience of the general reader 
whose laMgimgj' was Aram;eaii, a translation, possibly from the same 
pen as the original, was made into (he Aram;ean vernacular. \Ye must 


suppose, then, that certain parts of the original Hebrew manuscript 
being lost, the missing places were supplied from the current Aramaean 
translation. This theory, which is that of Lenormant, ' Magie ' (Germ, 
ed., p. 527), has been also adopted by Bevan, the latest commentator 
on our book, in his ' Daniel' (1892) pp. 27 ff. I cannot agree in this con- 
nection with Kauiphausen, op. cit. 14, note, who rejects this hypothesis 
on the ground that the author of Daniel evidently fell into the error of 
regarding ' Chaldsean ' as the language of Babylonia, and consequently 
deliberately wrote in it those sections applying more especially to 
Babylon, reserving the Hebrew for the more solemn prophetic parts. 
Kamphausen does not explain, however, any more than his predecessors 
in this opinion, why the apocalyptic Aramaic chapter vii., which is 
indivisible from the succeeding prophetic Hebrew portions, is in Ara- 
maean instead of in Hebrew. 


The most important references to /.V/xar^c/'/- in the published con- 
tracts are the following : 

(a) Strassmaier. Nabonidus/ is 4. when- mention is made of Nuhu- 
nkni-<i.ri xipii-i *n. Bcl^inn-in- nun- */////. X. the scribe of B. the son 
of the king.' Dated 25th Nisan, fifth year of Xabonidns. Translation 
'Records of the Past/ Xew Series, iii. 12 \ /. 

(b) Boseawen, 'Babylonian and Oriental Record/ ii. 17. IS; Revillout 
' Obligations en Droits Egyptians,' p. 895. . . . Strassraaier, Congress de 
Leide/ no. SI). Tablet S :!'J'.l. ;!>. i 1, 17. mention of the same person, and 
of \(tl>ti.-{'(iln'f-(fi'i(< : , the major- lomo of lic/xtirHrur, the son of the king. 
Dated seventh year of Xabonidus. Boseawen concludes from the 
mention of these especial servants of the king's son so early in his 
father's reign that the prince must have been born before the accession 
of NabonidllS, a conclusion hardly wan-anted by the premise^. as the 
exact age when a king's son had his separate household is not known. 

It should be remarked, however, that if /ii-l.^irnrin- were in command 
of the army in the seventeenth and last year of "his father's reign, the 
prince was probably older than seventeen. Compare also in this con- 
nection the statement recorded below, that in the first year of Nabonidus 
a plot of ground was sold to a servant of li<>l*<i riirnr for his lord. 

(c) Strassmaier Xabonidus.' ">si. Translation : ' Records of the Past,' 
iii. 124-125. mention of Nabu-$&bit-qdte the Btew&rd of Betearuqur the 
im'ir Harris Dated eleventh year of Nabonidus. 

(d) Strassmaier, Nabonidus, 1 688. Translation, ' Records of the Past,' 
iii. 124, allusion to same official. Dated sixth year. 

(e) Strassmaier, ' Nabonidus,' 662. Translation by Zehnpfund ' Bei- 
tr<"jcznr Axxyr.\ i. 527, no. 25, a list of garments. 5 gubdt esirti ana 
xuba 5a kurtm/motc *<irri 7it.'l.^n-nrnr. Dated twelfth year. This is the 
only allusion to the king's son known to me, where he is not especially 
called inur Min-i. The omission of the title in tlr's case was probably 
because the mention of the r.oyal steward shows who is meant. 


Uosrawcn. Hul>yl<mi;n and Oriental Record.' ii. 17, n. 1. Record 
of an offering made by the son of the king in Ebarra. Dated seventh 

X<ilni-('(tbit-(jrit(' (Nebo seizes the hands) was the name of the major- 
domo of Neriglissar (Nebuchadnezzar, 34, 2/6, 1, 5, see Strassmaier, 
k Alphabetisches Worterverzeichniss,') and of his son LabaSi-Marduk 
(Neriglissar, 2, 10/6, 2. See ' Bab. and Or. Record,' ii. 44, 48). The 
steward of Belxarugur may be the same person. 

To the contracts just mentioned should be added the two references 
to el8aru$ur treated of by Pinches, Independent, Aug. 15, 1889 : 

(a) Sale of a plot of ground by Marduk-eriba to Bel-resua, servant of 
BelSaritgur son of the king. Dated 26 Ve-Adar, first year of Nabonidus. 

(b) The record of. a small tablet from Sippar that Esaggila-rdmat, 
daughter of the king (Nabonidus), paid her tithe to Samas through Bel- 
x<inirur. Dated 5th of Ab, seventeenth (last) year of Nabonidus. This 
payment took place in the month before Sippar was captured by the 
Persians. Pinches, op. cit., believing that it had already been taken 
by the forces of Cyrus, tries to show that the city must have been 
retaken by the Babylonians. Sippar was not taken by the Persians 
until the 14th of Tammuz of Nabonidus' 17th year. 

The attempt of Boscawen, Transactions of the Society for Biblical 
Archaeology, ii. 27, 28, (followed by Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens, 1888, 
250, Cheyne, ' Encycl. Britannica.' vi. 803, etc.,) to identify Marduk- 
sarugur, whose fifth year he thought he had discovered on a tablet, with 
Belsarugur is unsuccessful. The contract to which the reference was 
made belongs to the time of Neriglissar. See Tiele ' Geschichte,' 476, 
Strassmaier, ' Congres de Leide,' n. 115, p. 586. 



The Cyrus Cylinder is written on a barrel cylinder of unbaked clay, 
nine inches long, three and a quarter inches in end diameter and four 
and one-eighth inches in middle diameter. It was reported by Hor- 
muzd Hassani in the Victoria Institute, Febr. 2nd, 1881, as being the 
official account of the capture of Babylon. 

The text of the inscription was published in 1880 by Pinches on the 
35th plate of the fifth volume of Sir Henry Rawlinson's Cuneiform 
Inscriptions of Western Asia, and lately in Abel-Winckler's Keilsehrift- 
texte, Berlin, 1890, pp. 44 if. The first treatment of the inscription, cm- 
bracing transliteration, translation and commentary, was published by 
Sir II. Hawlinsoii. .Journal of the Uoyal Asiatic Society, XII 2 , 7<> !>7. 
1880. Since that time translations have been ^ivm by Saycc. ' Fresh 
Light from the Ancient Monuments.' pp. 172 fi'.; Flnigl. ' Cyrus und Her- 
odot,' 1881, which is based on Sir Henry Rawlinson's work ; lv Babelon, 
Les inscriptions cunciformes relatives a la prise de Uabylone par 
Cyrus. Paris, 1881 ; Halevy. Mclan rus et le lletour de la 

Captivite,' pp. 4 tt'.: Tiele, l Assyrische und I>abylonisdie ( Jeschiclite,' 
p. 470ft'. a paraphrase: Iloinmel. ( lesehirhte A-syriens und Habylo- 
niens;' Eberhard Schrader, l Keilinschriftlidie Bibliothek,' III, pt. 2, 
pp. 120 127, a transliteration and translation based on a collation from a 
photograph; Friedrich I>elit/sch in M urdter's Geschichte Babyloniens 
und Assyriens, 1891. pp. 2-")!) tl'. a paraphrase ; ( ). K. llaucn, ' Beitrage 
zur Assyriologie,' II, pp. 20.") if. is'.H. transliteration, translation and 
commentary from an entirely new collation, and finally Sayce, Records 
of the Past, V, new series, pp. 144 ft'., a new translation. A translitera- 
tion of the cuneiform text is given in Lyon's .Manual, pp. !->M-41. 

The Annals of Nabonidus are eiiirravrd upon a gray fragment of 
unbaked clay in double columns front and back. The tablet, as we 
have it, is about four inches high and three and a half inches in 
breadth. For the exact measurements see Beitrage zur Assyriologie, 
II, 206. Notice of the inscription was given by T. G-. Pinches in 1880, 
in the Transactions of the Society for Biblical Archeology, pp. 139, 
17i:. (See also Athenaeum, 1881, p. 215, an article by Sir Henry Raw- 
linson who considered it the Annals of Cyrus, and Sayce, Academy, 
March i:j. 1 ssi, XVII, 198). 


The text of the document is given by Winckler, Untersuchungen 
zur altorientalischen Geschichte, 1889, p. 154, and again lately from 
a fresh collation by 0. E. Hagen, 1891, op. cit. pp. 248 ff. whose copy 
differs but very slightly from that of Winckler. 

The first translation of the inscription which was made by Mr. 
I 'indies, appeared in the Transactions of the Society for Biblical 
Archeology, VII, 1882, pp. 153-169, and was accompanied by an 
introduction, transcription and notes. The same scholar submitted 
linos 1-4 of column II to a new collation, the result of which appeared 
in the Proceedings of the same Society, V, 10. 

Translations and paraphrases of the document have been given by 
the authors mentioned above as having presented translations, etc. of 
the Cyrus Cylinder, the most important being that of 0. E. Hagen, 
Beitrage zur Assyriologie, II, 215 ff., with full commentary. 

The greater part of the following translation and commentary, which 
is not based on a fresh collation, was made before Dr. Hagen's excel- 
lent work appeared. As his essay depends, however, on a new and 
careful collation of both documents, I have had no hesitation in adopt- 
ing in many passages his readings and in some cases the translations 
suggested by him. In every such instance due credit has been given 
to the source from which I drew. 








(-ka gal) ma-tu 1 -!! is-sak-na ana e-nu-tu ma-ti-su 

4 si (ta-am-)si-li 

u-sa-as-ki-na ci-ru-su-un 

5 ta-am-si-li E-saggil i-te-(ni-ip-pu-us 2 ) ana Uri u si- 

it-ta-a-tim ma-xa-za 

6 pa-ra-ac la si-ma-a-ti-su-nu ta 3 li u-mi-sa-am-ma id-di-ni-ib-bu- 

ub li ana (na)*-ak-ri-tim 

7 sat-tuk-ku u-sab-ti-li u-ad 5 -di-(ma) (is-)tak-ka-an ki-rib ma- 

xa-za pa-la-xa Marduk Sar ilani (Sa-) 6 qi-Se a-su-us-sii 

i V R. and Winckler Keilschrifttexte lu. Hagen, Beitrage II, 208, reads lu. 

a So Hagen, op. cit. 208. 

i tu-i?tu (?). 

< So St.rassiiiiiHM- and Pinches, cf. Hagen op. cit. 

In V K. and Winckler'sKeilschriittexto, la. Hagen corrects t<> ml. 
e Thus Hagen's collation. 

li-mu-ut-ti ali-su (i-te)-ni 7 -ip-pu-(us) u-nii-sa-am-ma. . .(nise)-su ina 8 
ab-sa-a-ni la ta-ap-su-ux-tim u-xal-li-iq kul-lat-si-in. 

A-na ta-zi-im-ti-si-na Bel ilani ez-zi-is i-gu-ug-(ma) ki-su-ur-su- 9 

un ilani a-si-ib lib-bi-su-nu e-zi-bu ad-ma-an-su-un 

ina ug-ga-ti sa u-se-ri-bi a-na ki-rib Babili*. Marduk ina Si 9 10 

li sa-ax-ra a-na nap-xar da-ad-mi sa in-na-du-u su-bat-su-un 

u nise mat Su-me-ri u Akkadi sa i-inu-u sa-lam-ta-as u-sa-ax-xi-ir 11 

ka si ir-ta-si ta-a-a-ra. Kul-lat ma-ta-a-ta ka-li-si-na i-xi-it 


is-te-'-e-ma ma-al-ki i-sa-ru bi-bil lib-bi sa it-ta-ma-ax qa-tu-us-su. 12 

m Ku-ra-as sar ai An-sa-an it-ta-bi ni-bi-it-su a-na ma-li-ku-tim 

kul-la-ta nap-xar i-zak-ra sii-(uni-su). 10 

" 1:ll <,)u-ti-i gi-mir Um-inan-man-da u-ka-an-ni-sa a-na se-ii-sii nise 13 

gal-mat qaqqadi sa u-sa-ak-si-dn qa-ta-a --M 

i-na ki-it-tim u rni-sa-ru is-te-ni-'-e-si-na-a-tim. Marduk belu rabu 14 

ta-ru-u nise-su ip-se-e-ti-sa dain n -qa-a-ta li lib-ba-su i-sa-ra xa-di-is 


a-na ali-su Babili 12 a-la-ak-sii i<|-bi u-isa-ay-bi-it-su-nia xar-ra-nu 15 

Babili K! ki-nia ib-ri li tap-pi-e it-tal-la-ka i-da-aSu. 

Qm-ma-ni-Su rap-5a-a-tim >a ki -ma mc-c nai-i la u-ta-ad-du-u ni-ba- 16 

su-un kakkc-^u-iiii ra an-du-ma i->a-ad-di-xa i-da 

ba-lu <{al)-li u ta-xa /i a-Se-ri-ba-aS ki-ril. labili s al-Au Babili 12 17 

i-ti-ir ina sap-sa-qi. '"Nabfi-na'id sarri la pa-li-xi-sii u-ma-al-la-a 


ni^c Babili 13 ka-li--u-nu nap-xar mat Sii-mr-ri u Akkadi ru-bi-e u 18 

sak-kan-nak-ka Sa-pal-Su ik-mi-sa a-na-aS-Si-qu sc-pii-us-^u ix-du-u 

a-na SarPU-U-ti-Su im-nii-ru )ia-iui-iis-^u-iin 

be-lu sa i-na tu-kul-ti-sa u-bal-li-m mi tu-ta-an i-na pu-ta-qii u pa- 19 

ki-e iii--ini-lii knl-la-ta-an ta-bi-is ik-ta-ar-ra-lui-;n i- raiii-ma-ru zi- 


A-na-ku "'Ku-ra-ai >ar ki; -at ;arrn rabu iarni dan-mi sar l>a)ili i:! 1^1 

; ar mritsii-nie-ri u Ak-ka-di-5 sar kib-ra-a-ti ir-bi-it-tim ; 

mar n 'Ka -ain-l)ii-/.i-ia >arrn rabu sar '''An-^a-an mar mai'i IM Ku- 21 

ra-as sarru ral)A sjir " ? An--a-an lip-pal-pal '"Si-i-pi is iarru rabn 

sar ^''An-sa-an ; 

y.oru da-rii-u >a >arrii-u-tu sa IJT'l u Xabu. ir-a-mn pa-la-a-su a-na 22 

tu-ub lib-bi-.iii-nu ix-si-xa (sarru)-ut-sit. Ivnn-ma (a-na ki-rib) 

Babili 115 c-ru-bu sa-li-mi-is 

^ 1 adopt Hagen's correction to 711. The halt ot the original may have been a 
mistake of the scribe. 

9 So V K. and Winckler. Hagen reads ti. 

10 Traces not clear. 

11 So Winckler. V K. has ' nin-su.' 

is Tin-tir-ki. 


23 i-iiii ul-gi u ri-sa-a-tim i-na okalli ina-al-ki ar-ma-a su hat be-lu-tim 
Marduk belu rabu lib-bi ri-it-pa-su sa mare Babili 13 u. . . .an-ni-ma 
u-mi-sam a-se-'-a pa-la-ax- 14 su. 

24 Um-ma-ni-ia rap-sa-a-tim i-na ki-rib Babili 13 i-sa-ad-di-xa su-ul-ma- 
nis. Nap-xar (Su-me-ri) u Akkadi zeru rabu (na-ak)-ri-tim ul u-sar-si 

25 ki-rib Babili 15 u kul-lat ma-xa-zi-su i-na sa-li-im-tim as-te-'-e mare 

Babili 13 ki ma-la lib-(bi). . . .ma ab-sa-a-ni la si-ma-ti-su-nu su- 


26 an-xu-ut-su-un u-pa-as-si-xa u-sa-ap-ti-ir sa-ar-ba-su-nu. A-na 
ip-se-e-ti 16 . . . .Marduk belu rabu-u ix-di-e-ma 

27 a-na ia-a-ti m Ku-ra-as sarru pa-li-ix-su u Ka-am-bu-zi-ia mar gi-it 
lib-bi ap. . . - 17 um-ma-ni-ia 

28 da-am-qi-is ik-ru-ub-ma i-na sa-lim-tim ma-xar-sa ta-bi-is ni-it-ta- 
['-du iluti-su(?)] 18 ir-ti. 

29 Nap-xar sarri a-si-ib parakke sa ka-li-is kib-ra-a-ta is-tu tam-tim 

e-li-tim a-di tam-tim sap-li-tim a-si-ib sarrani mat A-xar-ri-i 

a-si-ib kus-ta-ri ka-li-su-un 

30 bi-lat-su-nu ka-bi-it-tim u-bi-lu-nim-ma ki-ir-ba Babili 8 u-na-as- 
si-qu se-pu-u-a. Is-tu a-di Assur li Susinak kil9 

31 A-ga-ne- fci mat Es-nu-nak ai Za-am-ba-an ai Me-tur-nu Dur-ilu ki a-di 
pa-at mat Qu-ti-i ma-xa-(zasa e-bir 20 )-ti na rDi g i a t2i a is-tu ap-na-ma 
na-du-u su-bat-su-un 

32 ilani a-si-ib lib-bi-su-nu a-na as-ri-su-nu u-tir-ma u-sar-ma-a su-bat 
dara 22 -a-ta. Kul-lat nise-su-nu u-pa-ax-xi-ra-am-ma u-te-ir da-ad- 

33 li ilani "J^Su-me-ri u Akkadi sa Nabu-na'id a-na ug-ga-tim bel 
ilani u-se-ri-bi a-na ki-rib Babili 8 i-na qi-bi-ti Marduk belu rabu 
i-na sa-li-im-tim 

34 i-na mas-ta-ki-su-un u-se-si-ib su-ba-at tu-ub lib-bi. Kul-la-ta ilani 
sa u-se-ri-bi a-na ki-ir-bi ma-xa-ze-su-un 

35 u-mi-Sa-am ma-xar Bel u Nabu sa a-ra-ku ume-ia li-ta-mu-u lit-tas- 
ka-ru a-ma-a-ta du-un-qi-ia u a-na Marduk beli-ia li-iq-bu-u sa 
m Ku-ra-as sarru pa-li-xi-ka u m Ka-am-bu-zi-ia mari-su 

36 da su-nu lu-u (matati) ka-li-si-na su-ub-ti ni-ix-tim u-se- 

.'.'. .'.V.'.YuS) 'TUR-XU-MBS a TU-KIL-XU-MBS! 


... (ad-ma-) na-su du-un-nu-nim as-te-'-ma 

14 Evidently ax cf. Hagen op. cit., 210. V R. has tu. 

is Ka dingir-ra-ki. 

IB Hagcn op. cit. p. 212 reads : a-na ib-se-e-ti-(ia dani-qa-tim?) 

17 Hagen: ' u a-na na-ap-xar.' 

i So Hagen and the most probable reading. 

19 See Beitrage II. 233. Suggestion of Belitzsch. 

20 This is the most probable restoration of the text. See Beitriige, II, p. 212. 

21 BAR. TIK. KAR. 
2JDA. ER. 



u si-pi-ir-su 


. - su-un Babili 8 







, . . -tim 



(dara)-a-tim^ 2 




umnianisu (?) 




matu issakna ana enutu matisu 4 si 

tamsili usaskina cirusun 5 tamsili Esaggil etenippus 

ana Uri u sittatim inaxaza 6 para la simatisunu ta li 

umisamma iddinibbub ana nakritim 7 sattukku usabtili u'addima 

istakkan qirib maxaze, palaxa Marduk sar ilani saqise 

asussu 8 limutti alisu etenippus umiSamma (nise)su ina abSani 

la tapsuxtiin uxalliq kullatsin. 9 Ana tazimtisina Bel ilani ezzis 

egug(ma) kisursun, ilani asib libbisun ezibu admansun 10 ina 

uggati sa useribi ana qirib Babili. Marduk ina si li saxra ana 

napxar dadmi sa innadu subatsun ll i\ nise mat Sumeri u Akkadi sa emu 
salamtas usaxxir ka. . . . si irtasi tara. 

Kullat matata kalisina ixit ibresu 12 iste'nia malki isaru bibil libbi 
sa ittamax qatussu. Kuras sar ai Ansan ittabi nibitsu, ana malikutim 
kullata napxar izakra sumsu. 13mat Quti gimir Ummanmanda ukan- 
nisa ana sepisu, nise galmat qaqqadi sa uisaksidu qatasu 14 ina kittim 
u misaru isteni 'esinatim. 

Marduk belu rabu tarii nisesu ipsetisa damqata u libbasu isara xadis 
ippalis 15 ana alisu Babili alaksu iqbi usa^bitsuma, xarranu Babili kima 
ibri u tappe ittalaka idasu. 16 Ummanisu rapsatiin sa kima me nari la 
utaddu nibasun, kakkesunu ganduma isaddixa idasu 17 balu qabli u 
taxazi useribas qirib Babili, alsu Babili etir ina sapsaqi. Nabuna'id 
sarri la palixisu umala qatussu. 

18 Nise Babili kalisunu napxar mat Sumeri u Akkadi v rube u sakkan- 
nakka sapalsu ikmisa, unassiqu sepussu, ixdu ana sarrutisu, immiru 
panussun. 19 Belu sa ina tukultisa uballitu mitutan ina putaqu u 
pake igmilu kullatan tabis iktarrabusu istammaru zikirsu. 




his troops (?) 

ruinous :! a weak one 

was appointed to the government of his land 4 a similar one 

he caused to be over them. : 'like Esaggil he made unto Ur and 

the rest of the cities ''a command unbefitting them. . . .daily he planned 
in enmity 7 he allowed the regular offering to cease. He appointed 

was done in the cities. :is for the veneration for Marduk, 

king of the gnds. he <lestroye<l its 8 evil against his city he did 

daily his (people) under a yoke which .nave them no rest he 

ruined all of them. "At their laments the lord of the nods was furi- 
ously wroth their side. The gods dwelling in the midst of 

them left their abodes Io in aiiirer that he had caused I strange deities) to 

enter into Babylon. Marduk in turned (?) to all the dwellings 

whose abode \vas established n and the people of Sinner and Akkad 
who resembled corpses 4 he turned he ^ranted mercy. 

Through all the lands altogether he looked, he saw him. and ^'sought 
tlie righteous prince, the favourite of his In-art, whose hand he took. 
Cyrus king of Ansan. he called by name, to the kingdom of every- 
thing created he appointed him. 1;; Outu. the entire tribe of the Tin- 
man Manda he made bow at his feet ; as for the people of the dark 
heads whom he (.Marduk) caused his ((Vrus') hands to conquer, 14 in 
justice and right he cared for them. 

Marduk the nreat Lord, merciful (?) to hi.- people, looked with pleas- 
ure on his pious works and upright heart, '-"'unto his city Babylon 
he commanded him to go, he caused him to take the road to Baby- 
lon going by his side as a friend and companion. 16 His extensive 
army, the number of which like the water- of a river cannot he known, 
with weapons girded on. proceeded beside him. 17 without strife and 
battle he let him enter into Babylon, he spared his city Babylon in (its) 
calamity. Nabonidus, the king, who reverenced him not, he delivered 
into his hand. 18 A11 the people of Babylon, all Sumer and Akkad, 
lords and governors bowed before him, kissed his feet, rejoiced at his 
coming to the throne, their faces were happy. 19 The Lord, who by 
his power brings the dead to life, who is universally benevolent with 
care and protection, they blessed joyously, reverencing his name, 

* i. e. might as well be dead. 


20 Anaku Kuras, sar kissat, sarru rabu, sarru dannu, sar Babili 
sar mftt 8umeri u Akkadi sar kibrati erbittim 21 mar Kambuziya, sarru 
rabu, sar ai Ansan, mar mari Kuras, sarru rabu, sar ai Ansan, lippalpal 
Sispis, sarru rabu, sar ai Ansan, 22 zeru daru sa sarruti sa Bel u Nabu 
iramu palasu ana tub libbisunu ixsixa (sarrut)su. Enuma (ana qirib) 
Babili erubu salimis, 23 ina ulgi u risatim, ina ekalli malki arma subat 

belutim, Marduk belu rabu libbi ritpasu sa mare Babili u annima 

umisam ase'a palaxsu. 24 Ummaniya rapsatim ina qirib Babili isaddixa 
sulmanis. Napxar (Sumeri) u Akkadi zeru rabu (nak)ritim ul uSarsi, 

25 qirib Babili u kullat maxazesu ina salimtim aste' mare Babili 

ki mala lib(bi). . . .ma absani la simatisunu subatsunu 26 anxutsunu 
upassixa usaptir sarbasunu. 

Ana epseti. . . .Marduk belu rabu ixdema, 27 ana iati Kuras, sarru 

palixsu u Kambuziya mar it libbi (u ana napxar) ummaniya, 28 dam- 
qis ikrubma, ina salimtim maxarsa tabis nitta' (du ilutisu ?) irti. 

29 Napxar sarri asib parakke, sa kalis kibrata, istu tamtim elitim 
adi tamtim saplitim, asib sarrani mat Axarri asib kustari kali- 
sun, 30 bilatsunu kabittim ubilunimma qirba Babili unassiqu sepua. 

Istu adi Assur u Susinak, 31 Agane, mat Esnunak ai Zamban 

ai Meturnu, Durilu adi pat mat Quti, maxaza (sa ebir)ti nar Diqlat sa 
istu apnama nadu subatsun, 32 ilani asib libbisunu ana asrisun utirnia, 
usarma subat darata. Kullat nisesunu upaxxiramma, utir dadmesun, 
33 ii ilani mat Sumeri u Akkadi sa Nabuna'id ana uggatim bel ilani useri- 
bi ana qirib Babili, ina qibiti Marduk belu rabu ina salimtim 34 ina 
mastakisunu usesib, subat tub libbi. Kullata ilani sa useribi ana qirbi 
maxazesun 35 umisam maxar Bel u Nabu sa araku umea litamu, littas- 
karu amata dunqiya u ana Marduk beliya liqbu sa Kuras sarru palixika 

u Kambuziya marisu 36 da sunu lu matati kalisina subti 

nixtim usesib 37 


(For the broken traces of the remaining verses see the Divided 


20 I am Cyrus, the king of hosts, the great king, the mighty king, the 
king of Babylon, the king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four 
regions, 21 son of Cambyses, the great king, king of Ansan ; grandson of 
Cyrus the great king, king of Ansan ; great-grand-son of Teispis, the 
great king, king of Ansan, 22 of everlasting royal seed, whose government 
Bel and Nebo love, whose rule they desire as necessary to their happi- 

When into the city of Babylon I entered in friendship, 23 with joy 
and gladne 1 established my lordly dwelling in the royal palace, Mar- 
duk, the great lord, made favourable to me the generous heart of the sons 
of Babylon, daily I cared for his worship. 24 My extensive army pro- 
ceeded peacefully into the midst of Babylon. All Sumer and Akkad, 
the noble race, I permitted to have no opposition, 2r 'the interior of 
Babylon and all their cities I cared fnr properly, the sons of Baby- 
lon as much as they desired the yoke which 

was not suitable for them, their dwelling place, -"their disorder I 
remedied, T caused their troubles to cea>e. 

At my (favourable) deeds Marduk the great lord rejoiced and 27 me, 
Cyrus, the king who reverences him and ( 1 ambyses. the offspring of 
my body (and) all my troops, -"he ble>-ed -raeiou>ly. while we right- 
eou>ly lauded his exalted divinity. (?) 

-''All the kings dwelling in royal halls, of all the regions from the 
upper to the lower sea. dwelling the Kings of the West- 
hind, all those who dwell in tents, brought me :; "their heavy tribute 

and in Babylon kissed my feet. From a> far ae AiSur and 

Silvan, ::I Agane. F^nunak. /ambaii. Metiirnn. Durilu, as far as the 
border of the land of the Quti. the cities aemss the Tigris whose sites 
had been established from former times. :{ -thc gods who live within 
them, 1 returned to their place- and caused them to dwell in a perpet- 
ual habitation. All of their inhabitants 1 collected and restored to 
their dwelling place-. :;:! and the -mis of Sinner and Akkad whom 
Nabonidns. to the an-er <.f the lord of the gods, had brought into Baby- 
lon, at the command of .Marduk the great lord, in peace :!4 in their 
own shrines I made them dwell, in the habitation dear to their heart. 
May all the gods whom I brought into their own cities, 35 daily 
before Bel and Xebo pray for a long life for me. may they speak a 
gracious word for me, and unto Marduk my lord may they say, that 

Cyrus the King who reverence* tbee and ( 1 ambyses his son 36 

. . -their all the lands I caused to dwell in a quiet dwell- 
in^ 7 

I S. Tl'li. XI .MKsand 'IT. KIL. XU. MES. 





L. 3. 'matu,' weak is a synonym of 'ensu ' cf. ASKT 59.21. 'maxiru 
matu ' = light price, and for the verb see IY. 56.11 'me mastitiya 
umattiV my drinking water supply they lessened. See also Ziminern, 
Busspsalmen, 93. 

'enutu' abstract formation from the Sumerian, 'en' Lord cf. 
Asurb, 1.38. 

L. 4. ' tamsilu ' similarity, likeness I 47. c. vi. 14 ' tam-sil Xama- 
nim.' The form ' tan-sil ' with partial assimilation of the ' in ' to the 
' 5 ' occurs Sarg. Cyl. 64. For this change cf. Haupt, Hebraica, I. pp. 
219-220, and see below note to v. 2, of Daniel v. 

L. 6. ' para la simatisunu ' ' parc.u ' can never mean ' shrine ' as Jen- 
sen, Keilinschr. Bibliothek, III. 1 p. 201 translates, asserting it to be 
a synonym of 'parakku.' In this Jensen appears to have followed an 
error of Winckler's, for which see Fried. Delitzsch, Beitrage II. p. 250 
and remark. 

L. 7. ' sattukku,' the regular offering or TDD . For the Assyrian 


names of sacrifices cf. Joh. Jeremias, Beitrage I. 279. ' sattukku ' may 
be regarded as an intensive formation with 'a' in the first syllable. (?) 

L. 9. ' tazimtu ' lament for 'tazzimtu' from \/D?J~a synonym of 
unninu, 'lament' and dimtum, 'tear.' See Delitzsch, Beitrage, II. 
251, and passages there cited. For the verb 'nazamu' cf. Asb. 
Smith 120, 27' a-zi-ma 'I lamented (var. ' az-zi-ma ') and IV. 58, 20b 
1 unazzinm.' 

'ki-su-ur-su-un,' their border cf. Keilinschr. Bibliothek III. pt. 1. 
18811. 18-19. 'a-xu-u-ti ki-sur-si-na ' the portioning off of their 
border. In V. 31. 3 e. f. we find 'ki-sur-(ri)' = 'mi-9ir.' The verb 
'kasaru' means 'bar off,' cf. I. 27, 34 b. 

L. 10. l sa innadu subatsun' not 'whose abode was cast down.' 
'subtu' or ' musabu nadu' means to set up or establish a dwelling. 
See Cyl. 31 and Jager, Beitrage II. 282, and literature there cited. 

L. 11. ' emu,' be like, is a synonym of ' masalu 'V. 47, 23. It is con- 
strued either with an adverb as here cf. 'useme karmis' 'I made it 
like a field,' Sanh. I. 75; 'emu tilsmis,' I. 51. n. 2. 14; emu 'maxxu- 
tis,' 'they were as if destroyed,' III. 15. 21, c. I. (See Jensen Kosm. 
:;:;<;/7.). or with ' kima 'or ' ki ' as in the iVluuv, Xim. Epos II. 143. 1. 
'20.'5. For discussion regarding the stem N/HDJ^ see n te to v. 21 of 
Daniel v.. Appendix I I. 

;al :l n.tas' cf. ' Klamtas,' Sanh. Iv.nst. 27 ' axrataS,' V. 34. c. II. 48. 
I I!., Saigon Uarrcl. II. and T 11. 7. F. IS, 'salamtu,' or, with reciprocal 


assimilation 'salandu,' is the same as N^l'p^'N^'?^ cf. Haupt, 
Ztschr. fiir Assyriologie II. 266, n. 5; Beitrage 1. 3, and Hebraica III. 
187, for the existence of a stem, \/slm meaning to die, both in Assy- 
rian and Samaritan. 

'tara.' = mercy is used substantially as in V. 64, 15 !l and Creation 
Fragm. n. 18 obv. 13 (Beitrage II. 231) cf. also V. 21, 54. 'taru,tir- 
anu,' forgiveness, is a synonym of : uiustaru' V. 21.57 (Beitrage 1.173) 
and L kissii ' == love, 1. 56. ' Ta-a-a-ra ' is an intensive form like ' daiianu' 
and stands for ' taiiaru. 1 cf. Busspsalmen 102. 

L. 13. Qutc see below on Annals TIL 15. 

'Umman-manda probably means, as Jager has lately suggested (see 
Beitrage II. .'{Oil note), the 'great horde.' or 'army.' regarding 'nianda' 
as a liyform of ' ma 'da. niadda.' See the citation in Pelitzsch, Assyr. 
Worterb. 227.1. 20ff: 111. U. <;:!. 38*, where we find 'umman ma'atti' 
(fern, of 'ma'du') for k umman-manda.' Pelit/seh's opinion is that 
'mandn' stood for ' mantii ' = ' maim" = - ' ma'anu ' (cf. HJJli^P from 
\7pj7) and was a word meaning north, (op. cit, 22(5.) (Sec. however, in 
this connection Jensen. Kosm. 10). Tlalevy, Xeitschr. fur Assyr. Ill 
ierived it from v x *110 } - *' manda = niadda. 

Umman-manda seems to have heen the common name for the wild 
hordes of the east ami north, of various race.-, who were probably 
so called o\vin,L r to their iireat nnmbei-s. Later on. however, the name 
became applied to the Medes proper, as we find it. for instance, in V 1!. 
(it. .'It! If. where Astyages (Itumegu) is called Kin- of the rmman- 
manda.' The reason of this was. that after the overthrow of Nineveh 
by the Medes. the wild Asiatic hordes became subject to Median rule 
and thus were identified in the minds of foreigners with their con- 
querors. In the passage. V I!, ill. : >o'. there is apparently a com- 
parison between the 'Tinman nianda. uivat army.' of Utume.uru and 
the uminani icuti ' of Cyrus. ! r. op. cit. 300 note and com- 

pare, furthermore, in connection with the name. Proceedings of the 
Society for Biblical Arclia-oh.-v . Nov. 7. 'S2. 11. Muss-Arnolt, Hebra- 
ica, vol. VII., p. 8(iff. and (leschichte. 334). 

' nise calmat qaqqadi/ Ha.iren. I>eitra-c IT. 231, thinks that this can 
hardly be a reference to the Babylonians, as they were not yet con- 
quered by Cyrus. We have no rca-on to doubt, however, that Cyrus 
did not have the ureater part of Babylonia in his hands before he 
took Babylon proper. The 'people of the dark heads' here, therefore, 
are probably those Babylonians who had already surrendered to the 
Persian power, and whom Cyrus had treated with exemplary forbear- 

L. 14. 'taru' merciful, a derivative from ' taru 'to turn towards, be 
gracious to. The form ; ta-ru-u ' may be for ; taru,' an adjectival for- 
mation with ' nisbe.' Hagen, Beitr. II. 231, compares V. 47. 17 ' taranu ' 
=' c,illu,' but is in doubt whether 'taranu' is from 'taru,' 'to turn 
toward ' or from a stem l taru ' to shield. l taranu,' however, may be 


a formation with '-arm ' from ' taru,' just as ' mutanu', pestilence,' is a 
derivative of ' m.itu,' cf. also ' garanu ' a running of tears, from 


'ipsetisa damqata' It seems necessary to consider with Hagen the 
'sa' as a byform of the masculine suffix -su. Compare 1. 19, 'tukultisa' 
(= g u ) and 1. 28, 'niaxarSa' (= su) and also in this connection IV. 27. 
11 b, 'etla ina bit emutisa usegu', they (the evil demons) have driven 
the man from his conjugal chamber.' 

L. 15. 'tappu' companion and technically, partner, cf., IV. 58, 50 n 
'bit tappesu '' kasap tappesu ' ASKT 66. 7. The word can hardly 
be connected with the stem " ClJOD ," protect, 1 as Muss-Arnolt has 
sought to show, (Hebraica, vol. VII. p. 57.), first, because the Assyrian 
' tappu ' is written with the character ' tap ' (see Haupt, ASKT-Schrift- 
tafel no. 65 and ASKT, p. 66-7 ff.) which indicates a value ' j"| ' for the 
initial consonant, and secondly, because the forms ' tap-pi-u-tu ' and 
'tap-pe-su,' occur, showing that the word cannot be from a stem yy . 
We find also the feminine form ' tappatu ' V. 39. no. 3, 1. 62. For the 
abstract 'tapputu,' cf. IR. Sennacherib Prism, 1. 5b 'alik tapput aki ' 

one who goes to protect the weak : V. 33, c. II, 5. ' tap-pu-ut Marduk.' 
The stem in Assyrian is probably a derivative from the non-semitic 

root ' tap ' = two the partner being considered the ' second.' Compare 
in this connection V R. 37. 28 ff, where we find as synonyms of ' tappu,' 

'sina' = twice, 'kilallan ' = on both sides, and, V R. 37, 1. 31, 'atxu.' 
The latter being a form from the same stem as 'axu' brother, with 
infixed *t/ cf. 'itxutu' = howling, from \/axu IV 9. n. 3. 39. 

L. 16. 'uttaddu' from c idu' to know, 3 m. pi. of the Iftaal. See 
IV. 15. 8 ft ; 43, 44. and the Deluge Haupt's Nimrod Epic, pt. II, pp. 
134-139 1. 113. For the form cf. Keilinschr. und das A. T. 2 p. 73. 

'ganduma' usually of harnessing beasts of burden, as Hagen, Bei- 
trage, II. 231 correctly remarks. For a figurative usage of the verb 
'amadu' compare however, ASKT. 116 1. 18. 'ma'dis ana salputi 
camdaku ' ' greatly am I yoked to sin.' 

'sadaxu' always means 'to proceed' 'march' cf. the substantival 
usage ' sadaxu sa Belit Babili ' Asurb. VIII. 18. The procession of B. 
of Babylon. Derivatives are 'masdaxu' syn. of 'suqu' street, II, 
33. 11 see also ASKT 202. n. 20, and 'isdixu ' = 'alaktu', IV 57. 15". 

L. 19. ASKT 'Ina tukulti-sa' see 1. 14. 

' mitutan ' the dead, cf. ' kullatan,' nmtitfm,' 'kilatan, 7 Delitzsch, 
'Assyr. Gr, g 80. d. 

'putaqu u pake,' care and protection. See Hagen, Bcitvagc II, 232. 
'putaqu' may be derived from a stem *) = paqu, to look, care for, 

1 tatapu means really to surround, enclose, cf. II R. 23. 1. ff. C. where we find a 
door called 'saniqtum,' i. e. that which encloses or shuts in, and also 'mutetiptum' 
and titippu.' All of these words are given as synonyms of ' daltum.' 


being, as Hagcn suggests, an intensive reflexive form. ' paqtV on the 
other hand can only be from a stem Xp . See Flemming, Neb. 39, 
and Zimmern, Busspsalmen 60, n. 1, who explain it as denoting the idea 
of 'confident looking,' cf. Heb. HpD i' 1 the Piel, which means 'to 
look attentively.' Is it not possible that *) and X^ may contain 

tlie same root? There seems to be no connection between the ' pake ' 
in this passage of the and that in V li. '2'.}. '2'.} '2~. where the word 
' paku ' is cited as a synonym of various expressions denoting meekness. 

The adverbial accus. 'piqa' may be a derivative of the stem K-^p^ , 
cf. Jager, Beitrage II, 80"). 

L. '21. Kura; sar Babili ; .For the legends regarding Cyrus in general 
and especially in connection with the account of Herodotus, compare 
Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot ; Bauer, die ( 'yrussage ; Schubert, Herodots 
Darstellung dor Cyrussage. Bivslau. IS'.II). etc.. etc. For the chro- 
nology of Cym.- reign, compare Tiele, Geschichte, p. 4s;',. and the litera- 
ture cited note 2.; also Biidinger, Die neuentdeckten Inschriften 
liber ( 'yrus. p. !9. IsS] and ( )ppert and Menant. Documents .Iuridi(|iies. 
].. 2<i 

A- to the commencement and duration of Cyrus' rule in Babylon 
the following statement may be of interest. The last contracts of 
the reign of Xaboiiidus are dated in the month lyar ( April- .May ) 

r>:;s. B.r. The date :>:;s instead of the usual :>:;:i (See [Jnger, Kyaxares- 

und Astyages p. "rj. Noldeke. Anfsat/.e. p. l^i' is neee<sitated by the 
nine months' reign of Laba-i-.Marduk. nnnientioned b\ the I'tole 
in;ean Canon, which brings forward the date of the fall by one year. 
Babylon was taken on the Kith Taninm/ (.July l.")th) .").'iS. when 
Xabonidu- ceased to n-i.-n. Cyrus entered the city the ,'lrd day of 
Marche-van (October 27) evidently assuming the reins of government 
at once, as the first known contract of his iviiin is dated in the follow- 
ing month in his ' commencement year;' i.e. Kish-v Kith (December 
9th) 588. (See Tide. Geschichte -iiM. [Jnger, op. cit. .VJ.) The oflicial 
first vear did not JJCLMII therefore until five nnuiths later; i.e. Nisan 
5:57. ' 

As to the exact duration <>f Cyrus' reign there is some confusion. 
Although the Ptolema-an Canon gives him nine \ear>a> King of Baby- 
lon, a contract exists, dated in his t< ntl> year, giving him the title 
' Kin- of Babylon and of the Lands.' (See Tiele. ( ie-chidite Kl. citing 
Strassmaier.) It is possible eithi^r that this may be an error or that 
the writer may have confused the last year of Nabonidiis or the com- 
mencement months of Cyrus with the first year of Cyrus' reign. The 
twenty-nine years of Herodotus I. 214 and the thirty years of Ktesias 
(see Justin I. 8.) attributed to Cyrus, refer to his combined rule over 
Aii-^an and Babylon. It is therefore probable that Cyrus began to 
rei-n in Ausan either twenty or twenty-one years before he captured 
Babylon; i.e. about 5oS or ,").">:. (See Kvers. Das Emporkommen der 
persischen Macht unter Cyrus, 39, who sets his birth about 590.) 

' sar kibrati crbittim' For the origin and significance of this title see 
now Lehmann, Samassumukin pp. TS. !i.'5 !K 

L. 21. ' Mar Kambuziya,' etc. 

The genealogy of the Achamienian Kings presents a hitherto 
unsolved problem, of which a brief statement may be interesting. 

(Yrus was descended from the same stock as Darius Hystaspis. 
Their respective genealogies as given in the Cylinder and the Behistun 
Inscription may be seen from the following table : 

f Cyrus, son of 


L (SispiS) Teispis 

Darius, son of 
Vistaspa, " 
Ariaramna, " 
(qaispis) Teispis 

of the 
1 Inscription. 

Darius Hystaspis in the Behistun Inscription traces his descent from 
Hakhamanis (Achaemenes) giving five generations of his ancestry, but 
adding that eight of his family were formerly kings and that he was 
the ninth. (See Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften, 1881, p. 3). 
The eight generations can be made up from Herodotus, who in his 
ancestry of Xerxes added three names between Qaispis (Teispis) and 
Hakhamanis, the latter of whom, as will be seen from the above table 
is mentioned in the Behistun Inscription as father of the former. 
The three names introduced by Herodotus are: another Teispis, whom 
we may call the first, and another Cambyses and Cyrus. His geneal- 
ogy giving eight generations is as follows: Her. YII. 11. M?) yap elrjv 
ex Aapeiov TOV ' YarderTreof , TOV 'Apcafieog TOV "Ap/weu TOV TetaTreoz, adding 
then TOV "Kvpov TOV Ka/^3i<<7ew rov Tei'aTreof TOV 'A^atjueveof yeyovuq. 

Hystaspis, however, according to Herodotus III. 70, was merely a 
governor in Persia, though of good family and it is probable that 
Arsames and Ariaramnes were never Kings, nor are they so called in 
the Behistun Inscription. 

Comparing then the record of the Cyrus Cylinder with the list of 
Herodotus, still further difficulties arise, as will be seen from the fol- 
lowing table: 

Herodotus and f 

Behistun \ Hakhamanig = Aohaemenes 

Names given 

only by 

Teispis (?) 
Cambyses (?) 
Cyrus (?) 


Herodotus and 


A rsames 

Cyrus I 
r.-imbyses I 
Cyrus the Great 
Cambyses II. 



Omitting the three immediate ancestors of Darius and counting only 
the other line, beginning with Cambyses II, son of Cyrus the great, 
nine kings of Darius' family will be found instead of eight. (Winck- 
ler, Untersuchungen, p. 28, omits Achrcmenes, the ' Ahnherr' ; but he 
is especially mentioned by the account of Darius as the first of his 

On examining the record of Herodotus (Teispis? Cambyses? Cyrus?) 
and comparing it with the account of the Cylinder (Teispis, Cyrus, 
Cambyses, Cyrus) it serins probable that Herodotus misunderstood the 
genealogies, placing two parallel lines in consecutive order, omitting 
the Cyrus after Teispis and introducing a second Teispis. 2 Adopting 
this supposition and omitting the Teispis. Cambyses and Cyrus of 
Herodotus the following family tree can be presented: 



Cyrus I 
Cambyx - I 
Cyrus (the Great) 
Cambyses II 

Here again if the three immediate predecessor^ of Darius be omitted 
as non-kiiiL!>. then- is an ancestry of only six. whereas if they be 
included there is a total of nine. :; ( )f course the easiest way out of the 
difficulty is with Halevy (.Muscon '2. 1.' I.) to cut the knot by calling 
Darius a liar and a>sertinir that he purposely gave a wrong genealogy. 
(Winckler. I 'ntrrsiK-hunirrn. 1-*. hints at such a solution. See in this 
connection Delattre, Mede>. 

Concerning the early history of the Ach;i'inenians practically all that 
can be decided at prex-nt is. that if a- Beems necessary, Ariarainnes. 
Arsaincs and IFystaspis be omitted, two unknown kings 4 must be 
included in the list in order to make up the total of eight claimed by 

A -will be seen from the above, the descent of Cyrus the Great is 
perfectly clear up to Teispis and that Teispis was not only an ancestor 

2 Araiaud, Melanges Kenier 260, accepts the genealogy of Herodotus and conject- 
ures that the second Teispis may have been the first King of Persia to rule over 

3 Floigl (op. cit. 22) includes them, considering them Kinjrs of Hyrcania (see pp. 
6-7) and in order to bring down the total, sacrifices Cyrus I. the Grandfather of 
Cyrus the Great. The latter however distinctly designates his grandfather as 
' great King, King of Ansan.' 

* Spiegel adds before Achtcnienes and Teispis two supposed kings of the same 
name. If, however, Aehannenes, the founder of the dynasty, be conceived of as 
mythical (the i/p^so Biidinger, p. 6, Winckler, p. 28) and as never having reigned, 
(Meyer, Gesch. 559) it will be necessary to supply three supposititious kings. For 
other opinions concerning this problem see Rawlinson, Journal of the Royal 
Asiatic Society, 1880, 74 ff. Oppert, Medes, 113, b. 162 b. refuted however by Spiegel, 
op. cit. 84, Biidinger 6, Evers. 26 ff. etc. 


of Darius Hystaspis, but also an Achamienian arid an Aryan, is shown 
by the Persian inscriptions. 5 Cyrus was therefore not of Elamitic 
origin or naturalization, as some have sought to show, 6 but an Aryan 
of Aryan descent, according to the opinion of the ancient writers both 
sacred and profane. Not only is Cyrus called King of Persia (Parsu) 
in the Babylonian inscriptions, but the testimony of the biblical writ- 
ers as well as of Herodotus, who drew from Greek, Lydian, Egyptian, 
Babylonian and Persian sources, point to the same fact. We should 
compare the scriptural references to Cyrus as a Persian or King of 
Persia ; Daniel vi. 28 ; II Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23 ; Ezra i. 1, 2, 7, 8 ; iii. 
7 ; iv. 3. In Ezra v. 13, he is called King of Babylon. (See in this 
connection Delattre, Medes 48, 49.) 

' Sar al Ansan.' The place is specified either as al Ansan (city of 
Ansan) as here or mat Ansan, indifferently. See V R. 64.29, where 
Cyrus is called King of the country of Ansan and an insignificant vas- 
sal of Astyages, l ardu faxrC The city or country evidently bore the 
same name. It is mentioned in the astronomical tablets in connection 
with Subartu. Compare Delattre : Cyrus dans les monuments Assy- 
riens, p. 2, and for Subartu, see Zeitschr. fiir Assyr. I. 196. 

The country of Anzan or Ansan, over which Cyrus and his three 
ancestors ruled has excited numerous conjectures. See Evers, op. cit., 
p. 30 ff. and literature cited. Some critics, such as Rawlinson (Journal 
of the Royal Asiatic Soc. XII. 2 p. 76) and Sayce (Transactions III. 
475) have considered it identical with Elam, following the syllabary 
II R. 47, 18, where we find An-du-an ki -As-sa-an=Elamtu. (cf. also 
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, 180, and Meyer, Geschichte, 
396, 493. 

That the name cannot be synonymous with Elam is shown in Sen- 
nach., Taylor, 5, 31, where it is recorded that the King of Elam leagued 
against Assyria with a number of smaller states among which was 
Ansan. (See Weisbach, Anzanische Inschriften, 123-124.) Ansan 
must therefore have been an independent state, but we may conclude 
from II R., 47, 18 probably at one time tributary to Elam. In early 
days it appears to have been a feeble power, as it succumbed 
the attacks of Princes like Gudea (Amiaud, Ztschr. fiir Keilschrift- 
forschung 1, 249) and Mutabbil of Durilu (Winckler, Untersuchungen, 
116, 156, 157.) In the classical authors there is no mention of the 
place but the Arab, Ibn el Nadirn (Kitab el Fihrist 12, 22, cited JRAS. 

o Naqsh-i Rustem 8. ' I am Darius son of Vistaspa the Achaemenian, a Per 

sian son of a Persian, an Aryan son of an Aryan.' In Behistun 1, 14, 61 Darius says 
that the government which Gaumata the Magian usurper took from Cambyses had 
been in the family from most ancient times. This can only refer to the rule over 

e HaleVy, Revue des fitudes Juives, 1880. Comptes rendues de 1' Academic des 
Inscriptions 7, 1880. Melanges 6, also formerly Sayce, Herodotus 386 ; Fresh Light, 
167-175. See however Delattre Medes, 45-54, who meets and refutes all of Hah' vy'> 
theories in this .connection. Ktesias stated, apparently with little or no authority 
that Cyrus was Ihr son of u ' Mardhin ' robber Athadatrs. 


XII. 2 76) speaks of an ijUwwt in the district of Tuster (Shuster) which 
is probably identical with the Ansan of the Aclmmienians. 

The title King of Ansan proves nothing against the Persian origin of 
Cyrus, whose family may have acquired this Elamitic country by con- 
quest, perh aps under Teispis, or some previous king. 7 It is well 
known that in earlier times Ansan was ruled by a non-Aryan, non- 
Scmitic native line, and it may be supposed that all the Elamitic 
provinces after the complete overthrow of Elam by Assurbanipal 
were an easy prey to any invader. (Note that the language of Ansan 
was Elamitif See Weisbach, An/anisehe Inschriften, 124.125. and 
below. Appendix II. on v. 28. Amiaud, Melanges Renier, 249, thought 
that Ansan was the most ancient part of Elam.) 

With reference to the fact that the Elamitic Susa was the seat of 
the Persian power, wliich has been cited by llalevy. (see Delattre, 
Medes r>2) as an evidence against the Persian origin of Cyrus we find a 
satisfactory explanation in Straho. Susiana. the ( leoirraphcr said, had 
become like a part of Persia. After the conquest of Media, Cyrus and 
the Persians. o\viir_i' to the remote situation of their own country, 
established the seat of their government in the more central Susa, the 
chief city of Su-iana, which is not far from IJabylon and the other 
provinces. (See Strain., 1."). !}. 2. cited by Delattre. 1. c.) Now as 
Delattre has pointed out, had Susa been their hereditary capital we 
would expect to lind the Klamitic language as the usual idiom of 
the Acha-nienian inscriptions. It seems probable that the Achjmie- 
nian kings and the Persians had at some unknown period of their his- 
tory conquered and annexed to their own territory the Klamitic country 
of Ansan. When, with the conquest of Media by Cyrus, a larger ter- 
ritory was at their disposal, a proper capital hcinir necessary for the 
new empire, the splendour of the old Klamitic Susa influenced Cyrus 
to otablish it as his headquarter-. 

L. 22. ' ixxixa ' an imperfect also occurs in ' u ' cf. Asiirb. V 1 1 . .'III. 
ix -n xa. also Tig. VII. 17. Derivative- an- ' \u-axxu ' = ' necessity, 
famine.' cf. Asiirb. III. 12."). Tig. VIII. ^. and ' Xi;ixtu ' need, want 
cf. Aram jliriu*n Dan. iii. Hi : K/.ra vi.'.i; vii. 20. A synonym of 
'xusaxxu' is "qalqaltum," V I!. 11. 12 III def. 

L. 2.'i. "a<e'a palax-u Se"u' to care for. trouble about, is frequently 
used in a religious sense, cf. AS KT. 1~).\ .b ; anaku Pulpul mar Pulpul 
aradka asxurka <;. (ka) 1 I N. son of N. thy servant turn to thee, seek 
thee. r rhere are three \erb>. '<e'u ' in Assyrian : viz., 1. sell- to seek 
vTTJft?', Hebrew n^'=to look, cf. 2 S. 22.42, to look for help. Gen. 
iv. 4, 5 look graciously upon, etc. 2. Se'u to grow, from which 

7 See Evers, op. cit. 39; Winckler, Untersuch. 128. Amiaud, Melanges Renier, 
260, n. 3, refers the overthrow of Elam in Jeremiah xlix. 34 ff. to the conquest of 
that country by the Persians. See also H. H. Howarth, Academy, no. 1033, p. 182. 
Note that EzekieJ xxxii. 24 speaks of Elam as a conquered people; cf. Meyer, 
Gesch. 560. 



' se'um ' grain, cf. se'u zer, I. 70. c. 1. 1 : also AL 3 93. B. 6. (creation tab- 
let) Hebrew rW-sprout. 3. 'Se'u' to fly, cf. Asurb. VIII. 88. 

L. 25. 'Subatsun' Hagen, Beitrage II. 232, reads l suzuz(?)-su-un, 
a shafel of * nazazu' and translates 'the yoke * * was taken from 
them.' This however necessitates supposing an entirely new value 
'zu/' for the character ' be, bat, til, ziz.' Besides this objection, the 
meaning 'taken away ' for the shafel of 'nazazu' given by Delitzsch, 
Wi>rterbuch,253, in the passage V '. 50.51/52, and cited by Hagen, 1. c. in 
support of this translation of ' siizuz-su-un ' is by no means certain. 
The passage reads ' sarat zumrisu uszizu ' (Y.50 51/52) and is rather 
to be translated ' one the hair of whose body the evil demon has caused 
to stum/ up (i. e. in fear), and not 'taken away.' 

L. 28. 'ma-xar-sa' see 1. 14. 'parakku,' ' sacred shrine,' or 'royal 
apartment,' not a 'seat,' ' heiliger Gottersitz.' with Lehmann, ' Samas- 
sumukin,' Glossar. I, and Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 1891, 
No. 25 sp. 789. f. The word is a derivative from the stem ' paraku ' = 
to separate, bar off, and signifies literally, a place barred off. Cf. 
Asurb. IV. 125 ' sa kima duri rabe pan Elamti parku ' which like a 
great wall barred the way before Elam. also 1. c. IV. 82 ' sa suqe pur- 
ruku' which blocked up the streets. ' Napraku ' and 'parku' signify 
a bolt, and are synonyms of ' medilu,' cf. 11-23, 35-37, and 38. 

For the form of 'parakku ' see Delitzsch, Assyrian Grammar, Engl. 
Ed. p. 169. 

L. 29. For ' kustaru ' see Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. fur Assyriologie 
I. 419 ff. 

L. 30. ' bilatsunu kabittini.' * biltu ' is probably cognate with the 
Hebrew 1^5 , see Paul llaupt, Journal of the American Oriental 

Society, XIII. 51 f. 

L. 31. Agane '"' an ancient city the site of which has not yet been 
discovered, but it appears to have been on the left bank of the Tigris 
in northern Babylonia. The idea that the name of the place was 
' Agade,' another form of ' Akkad,' (cf. Hommel, Geschichte p. 204 rum. 
1. and p. 220; 234) is entirely unfounded. Agane was plundered by 
Xumbaxaldasu II. King of Elam in the sixth year of the reign of 
Ksarhaddon (<>74) and the image of the goddess Nana was carried away 
to Elam. For the ancient kings of the city see Lehmann, ' Samassum- 
ukin,' !)3. Tiele (Jesch. 83, 113, 333, and Murdter-Delitzsch. Babyl. 
Gesch, 2ed., p. 73. 

1 Es-nu-nak ' is HagenV reading for 'Ab-nu-nak' on account of the 
form ' ASnunnak ' \ . 33.1. 30. (Inscription of Agumkakrime) cf. also 
'Is-nu-nak' I. 00. n. 2 c. II. 3 and see Del.. Paradise, 230 f. and Kos 
s;eans p. 150. It is a city and district on the border of Elam. In II. 
3D, 5!l g. h. we liml it compared with Um-li-as. Jensen in Keilinschr. 
Bildiotluik III. |)t. 1. 137 n. however doubts the identity of Esnunnak 
and I'mlias thinking that the former may he the same as the ' matu 


rabu ' of 1. 60, while the latter may be the ' matu gixru ' mentioned 
II R. 39. 

Zamban and Me-tur-nu. See Delitzsch, Paradise, 230 f. also 203. 204. 

Dur-ilu, see Winckler Untersuchungen zur Altoriental. (lesch. 86, 
Peiser Actenstucke, 77. It was the site of the battle between Xum- 
banigas of Elam and Sargon of Assyria. 

'pa-at Quti ' = = ' entrance ' of Gutium. Sec 11 ]\. 51. c. II. 21 and 
Delitzsch, Par. 233 (Hagen). Professor Haupt has suggested that 
'patu' is probably a feminine plural form of ' piV mouth, just as 
l panu' face is to be considered a masculine plural of the same word. 
'pitu' to open may also be a verbal formation from the feminine of 


'Qute' See 'Gutium' on Annals ITT. 17. 

'apnama " is probably an abbreviation for ; appimania.' See Delit/sch 
I'roleg. 13P>. According to V I!. 17. .">.">. it is a synonym of mu'di- 
/immern Busspsalmen, 97 and cf. II. KI.21 when- it appears to have 
the force of 'very, exceedingly'; 'ina nari tabba;ima muka daddaru 
appunama.' When thou art iii the river, thy water is exceedingly 
'daddaru,' i. e. gall-like bitter. For 'daddaru.' see also IV. 3, .'51)'' 
(Busspsalmen !>7). where it is explained by the same ideogram as 
'niartu'; vi/., (Ji-ef. Syll. S 1 ' I'.U (Ji -- martu gall, bitterness, for 
'niarratu' f-ee llaupt. Ueitr. l.l'and ef. I lel. n*)"l,tp ) 'Daddaru' 
laiier has pointed out. a reduplieative {'oi'inatioii from "TlX be 
dark, hence perhaps dirty. (?) (See IJcitra-j-e ll.2!!l.) 

' appuna ' is explained by ' )ii|a 'II. 25. lu : If',. 1 1. :l nd by the Sunierian 
'iginzu 1 (V, ir,.:;o ef. ASKT. 1S2. 12i. whi-h according to Jensen, Kos 

imdogie 40:i, is translated in a IScrlin syllabary by Assyrian 'mandi,' 
the exact meaning of which is not clear. (See V. 1C. 32 f.) The form 
' man(inin)dima ' on-urs Semi. IJawian. K>. See |)-l. A^syr. (Irani., 

p. 210. For ' pji|:i ' see llnte to 1. l!. 

In II. 1C), 21 c.. we find in the Sunierian column 'angaan' as the 
equivalent of 'appunama.' This is e\ idently a by form of ' i<jiir.n.' I 
btdieve .JaiMT (I.e.) is right in eomiecting 'appunama' with llie Tal 
mudic \P^"ilX = indeed, in truth. hi fact all of these words. ' piqa, 
mandi, igin/u ' and 'angan' are prol;illy to be translated in this way. 

L .'H. ' ma-taki-uiiu ' ef. I V. 27. ( .H> ' ardatam ma^talvi-a iiselu ' = They 
have made the girl go up from her dw(dling. Asiirb. X. 72, ' mastakn 
suatu musallimu belesnma ' The altode which blesso its owner. 

L. 35. 'Littaskanf Niphal Heflexiveof '/akaru' with partial assim- 
ilation of the 'z' to the'k.' It is not necessary to suppose a verb 
'sakaru' with Hagen. (Why sakaru with p ?) 

Parallel forms are " ix<|up' from ' y.aqapu and 'isxur' from ' saxaru.' 

L. 37. For US-TUR-XU and TT KIL-XU see Hagen, Beitrage II. 



Column I. 

2 ............................................................... 

............ su is-si 2 sarru 

3 .................................................... .......... 

. . . . ma-ti-su-nu 3 ana Babili 7 u-bil-lu 

4 .. ............................................................ 

t,i (unwritten space.) 

5 ............................................................... 

su is-(iz, ig)-xu-xu-ma ul is-si. 

6 .............................................................. 

ti kimat 3 -su-nu ma-la basu-u 

7 ............................................................ 

(e)-zib. Sarru umman-su id-qe-ma ana xu-me-e 4 

8 ............................................................... 

........................ i (unwritten space.) 

9 (Sattu 2 kan ) ................................................. 

(ina) arax Tebeti ina Xa-ma-a-tu ipsax 5 

10 (Sattu 3 kan ) .................................................. 

(ina) arax Abi ad Am-ma-na-nu sa-qi-i 

11 ............... .............................................. 

9ip-pa-a-tu inbu 6 ma-la ba-su-u 

12 .......................................... .................... 

si-ib-bi-si-na ana qi-rib Babili 7 

13 .......................................... c-/ib-ma iblu 8 -ut. Ina 

arax Kisilimi sarru umman-su 

14 .............................................................. 

. . . .tim Nabu-? 9 -dan-u9ur 

1 NUN-ME. 

2 su is-isi or iS-lim. This is of course not the ending of a proper name. C/. Floigl, 
Citrus und Herodot, pp. 54, 55, who thought the passage referred to Croesus of 

a IM-RI-A. 

4 Thus Hagen. Schrader considered it a proper name with determinative. 

i See Briinnow's List, 3036 for the ideogram. 

e So Winckler, Untersuchungen, p. 154. 

7 EM- 

8 TIN. 

Hagen suggests MAX. Winckler has a sign compounded of ' 5i ' and ' en.' 



Column I. 


his leader 


his .... the kins took away(?) 


of their land unto I>al>yhm they )nuiirht 



Su is-xn-. i'ii-ni( .'} he did not take away 


of(?) their families, as many as then- were 

- 7 

he left. The kin- eolleeted \\\< tr<M>|i>. in order to(?) 



(Second year) ... 9 

in the month Tehet in the land of Hamatii he irave peace. 

(Third year) 10 

in the month Ab, the hi.irh mountain . \nianiis 


willows, fruit as much as there v 


their. . . . unto the midst <d' IJahylou 

he left and remained alive. 13 

In Kislev the kiuir (eolleet(Ml) his tmops. 



(tam)-tim sa mat Axarri 10 a-na 

-du-um-mu it-ta-du-u 

17 .................... 

........ -ma yabe nia-du-tii 

18 ........ ... 

abullu 11 fil Sin-di-ni 


................ tiduki-su 


.................. te-qu. 


Column IT. 

1 (Ummansu) upaxxii >12 -ma ana cli m Ku-ras sar An-sa-an ana ka- 
(sa-di-su 13 ) il-lik-ma. . . . 

2 Is-tu-me-gu umman-^u ibbalkit-su-ma ina qati ga-bit a-na m Ku-ras 

3 m Ku-ras a-na mat A-gam-ta-nu al sarru-u-tn kas]>u xuraon sa-su 
makkuru 14 ............ 

4 sa mat A-gam-ta-nu is-lul-u-ma a-na mat An-sa-an il-qi. Sa-su niak- 
kuru 14 sa ud ..... 

5 Sattu 7 kan - Sarru ina ai Tc-ma-a mar sarri ara01 rabnti u c;il)c- 
su ina ma *Akkadi ki ........ 

6 ana Babili 7 la illi-ku. Nairn ana Babili 1 '" 1 la illi-kn. Bel la it-ta- 
ga-a isinnu 1 ' 5 (akitu) .... 

7 riiqe ina E-sag-gil u E-xi-da ilani sa Babili 17 n Bar-sap ki (sal-inn) 

8 iddi 18 -nu nrigallu 19 is-ruq-ma bita ip-qid. 

9 Sattu 8 kan - 

]() Sattu 9 kan - Nabu-na'id 20 sarru (ina) ^Te-ma-a, mar sarri, 
am61 rabuti n umma-ni ina mat Akkadi. Sarru ana arax Nisani ana 
Babili 17 

11 la illi-ku, Nairn ana Babili 15 la illi-kn, l>el la ittara-a i-sin-nn a-ki- 
tu ba-til 

12 n\<({". ina Ivsau-uil n K-/i-da ilani sa (Babili) u Bar-sip- ki ki sal- 
inn i(ldi- 18 na, 


11 Kvidently 'bfibu rabn.' 

12 NIGIN So Hag-en. 

13 Hag-en. 
n SA-GA. 

i6 For the ideogram see Delitzsch, Lesestlleke, Schrifttafel, n. 111. Col. 2. 

i' Tin-tir-ki. 

i SE ; 

i'. SKS. (l\\,. I rnml ' is-riK|' willi Ha^cii :is j)r<-l'rr:itilc to Sclir:ul(>i-'s ' kiril V.^-ma. 

20 AN-PA-I. 



the sea of the Westland unto 

............ 16 

il ' ii-u in-ni a set up. 

................... 17 

......... numerous warriors 

............................................................. 18 

the gate of the city of Sindin 

......................... ........................ 19 

. .......... his troops. 

.. ..................... 20 

........... (marched ?) 

.............................................................. 21 

................... warriors. 


(His troops) he collected, a.irainst Cyrus, kin- of Ansin, to compier 1 

him he went. 

I Against) Astyaues his troops rebelled and. being taken prisoner, 2 

unto Cyrus tliey gave him. 

Cyrus unto Ecbatana, the royal city, went, the silver, gnhl, treas- 3 

ures, spoil ........... 

of the land of Kebatana they captured and unto the land of An- 4 
san lie brought. Tin- treasures and spoil which .......... 

The seventh year. The king in Tema ; the noldes and his army in 5 

Akkad. (The kin- for Nisan) 

unto Babylon came not. Xebo unto Babylon came not, Bel was (> 

oot brought forth; the New Fear's festival (remained uncelebrated), 

sacrifices in Ksaggil and K/ida to the nods of Babylon and Bor- 7 

sippa, as is (right), 

the\ gave. the I'rigal poured out libations and -uarded the palace. S 

The eiuhth year. 

The ninth year. Xabonidus the kini: in Tema ; the son f the; kin^, 10 

the noldes and his army in Akkad. The kini: for Nisan unto 


came not. Nebo unto Babylon came not. Bel was not brought 11 
fortli ; the New YearV festival remained uncelebrated, 
sacrifices in Ksa-nil and K/ida to the gods of Babylon and Bor- 12 
sippa. as is riu'ht, they gave. 


13 arax Nisanu umu 5 kan - Ummi sarri ina Dur-ka-ra-su sa kisad 21 
nflr Purati 22 e-la-nu Sip-par ki 

14 im-tu-ut. Mar sarri u yabe-su 3 u-mu su-du-ru bikitu sitku- 
na- 3 -at. Ina arax Siinani ina mat Akkadi ki 

15 bi-ki-tu ina eli uninii sarri sitkuna-at. 2:{ Ina anix Nisani m Ku-ras 
isar milt Par-su <;abe-su id-qi-e-ma 

16 sap-la-an al Ar-ba-'-il nar Diqlat i-rab-ma ina ftra *Ari ana m{lt . . . . 

17 sarri-su i-duk bu-sa-a-su il-qi su-lit sa ram-ni-su ina libbi u-se-li- 
(ma ?) 

18 arki su-lit-su u sar-ri ina libbi ib-si. 

19 Sattu 10 kan - Sarru ina al Te-ma mar sarri am61 rabuti u umma-ni- 
su ina mat Akkadi ki - Sarru (ana Nisani ana Babili la illi-ku) 

20 Nabu (ana) Babili la illi-ku, Bel la ittaga-a isinnu a-ki-tu ba-til 
niqe (ina E-sag-gil u E-zi-da) 

21 ilani sa Babili 17 u Bar-sip- ki ki sal-mu iddi-na. Ina arax Simani 
umu 21 kan 

22 V sa mat E-lam-mi-ya ina mat Akkadi ki amel sa-kin 24 ina Uruk 

23 Sattu ll k an. garru ina a 'Te-ma-a, mar sarri am %abuti u umman- 
su ina mat Akkadi ki (Sarru ana Nisfini ana Babili la illi-ku) 

24 (Nabu ana) Babili 7 sarru ana 32 Bel la ittaga-a isinnu a-ki-tu ba-til 
niq(e ina E-sag-gil u E-zi-da) 

25 (ilani sa) Babili 7 u (Bar-sip ki sal-mu) iddi-na 

About 19 lines wanting. Of reverse about 17 lines wanting. 

Column III. 
1 nar Diqlat 

2 se Istar Uruk 

3 ilani sa mat tam-(tim) . . 



5 (Sattu 17 kan -) Nabu istu 

Bar-sip ki ana agi-e. . . . 

6 ab sarru ana E-tur-kalani-nia erub.- 5 


7 tam-tim sapli 2G -tum ?-bal-ki-tum . . 


8 (Nabu ana Babili illi-ku?) Bel ittaca-a isinnu 5 a ki-tu ki sal-mu 
ep-su. Ina arax 

21 TIK. 


23 SA. 

24 MAT (KUR). 
r. TU. 

se BAL. 


The month Nisan. The fifth day. The mother of the king died in 13 

Durkarasii, which is on the bank of the Euphrates above Sippar. 

The son of the king ami his army mourned three days, a lanienta- 14 

tion took place. In Sivan, in Akkad 

a lamentation for the mother of the king took place. In Nisan, 15 

Cyrus, king of Parsu, collected his troops, 

below Arbela the Tigris In- i-ro>scd(?) In lyyar. (o the land of. . . . Ul 

its he killed, its loot he took. His own governor(?) he 17 

appointed (lit. made go up) there. 

Afterward his governor also beeame king there(?). IS 

The tenth year. The king in Tema : the son of the king, the nobles 19 

and his army in Akkad. The king (for Nisan unto Babylon came 


Ncbo unto Babylon came not. Bel was not brought forth ; the New 20 

Year's festival remained unperformed, sacrifices (in Ksaggil and 


unto the gods nf Babylon and Borsippa, as is right, they gave. In 21 

Sivan. the twenty first day 

of the Klamitt'(V) in Akkad the representative in Krech. . . 22 

The eleventh year. The king in Tema : tin- .-on of the king, the 2.'J 
nobles and his army in Akkad. (The king for Nisan unto Babylon 
came not) 

(Xebo unto) Babylon (came not). Bel was net brought forth, the 21 
New Year's fe-tival remained uncelebrated, sacrifices (in Ksaggil 
and l']/ida 

to the .iiods of) Babylon and ( Brsippa. as is ri-ht). they gave 2~> 

(About 111 lines wanting. ( M reverse, about 17 lines wanting.) 

('nlllillll III. 

..the Ti-M-is 1 

I -tar of Kre.di 2 

. .gods of the land of the sea. 3 


(The seventeenth year) Ncbo from Borsippa 5 

to go forth .... 

alt the king unto Kturkalamma entered in the (! 

month .... 

of the lower sea, rebelled(?) 7 

(Ncbo came unto Babylon?) Bel was brought forth. The New 8 
Year's festival they celebrated, as is right. In the month. . . . 

1> il. <la ki Uu Za-ma-ma n ila it u ilani 

kalam-ma ana Babili 17 erubu-ni. A IS" ket 29 anut riiili 
il;i \kkadi k * 

. oli same u sapla 30 same ana Babili 7 erubu-ni ilani sa Bar 


V2 u Sip-par ki la erubu-ni. Ina arai Diizi m Ku-ras eal-tum ina 
ina imix 

'.at ana libbi uuana-ni m *Akkadi ki ki epu-su ni^e mit Ak- 
kadi^ ^kiepu-suv- 

14 l?AL ki Turn 14 Sippar^ ba-la yal-tum 


ui'id ix! a W m l>ba-ru am ^paxat m^Gu-ti-uni 

. .ibe m Ku s.'al-tum 

U> ana Babili 7 erub. Arki Nabu-na'id ki irtaka : *-sa ina Babili" ya-bit. 
\i maJak tu t.t u mo 

:i-um babaui _il isxur -i miiu-ma ina 

K sau ail n ekurv 

-.i-kiu u si-nia-nu ul eu: v-auiua umu 3 kan - m Ku- 

;ia Babili" orub.- 5 

\ ui-e ina (.Kiui-su irpudii^-ui. Su-luui anaali sa-kiu. m Ku-ras 
um ana Babili 17 

i-bi. m Gu-l>a-m * m *> ; :a iua Babili" 


21 u ultu arax Ki>ilimi adi "Addari ilani <a ma Akkadi ki ki Na- 
bii-ua'id 20 ana Babili" u-se-ri-du-(inm) 

- i-nu itur -/anna musu umi ll kmn 

ba-rn ina eli - 

.ri adi uu 
^Nisaui bi-ki-tum iua ^Akkadi^ 

% J4 T >u-uu ilbinuui. 43 I'niu 4 faul m Kani-bu-zi-ya 





topetitioa de*riy - - 4 


first by Hgea. 




- t: 


the irnds of Maradda. the trod /amama and (he irods of Ki^, Belt is !> 

and tho uods 

of Harsagkalamma entered into Babylon. I'ntil the end of Klul. 10 

the gods of Akkad, 

tho>e wlio are ahove as well as those below tlie firmament, entered 11 

into Babylon. The irods of Borsippa. Kutii 

and Sippar entered not In the month Tammuz when Cyrus gave 12 

battle in Opis (and ?) on the 

Salsallat to the troops of Akkad. the people of Akkad he subdued. 1.", 

whenever they collected he slew the people. On the 1 Ith day Sip- 14 

par was taken without hattle. 

Nabonidus tied. On the Itith day ( Inhryas t he -overnor of ( J ut iuni 15 

and the trnnps <it Cyrus witliout battle 

entered into Babylon. Afterward. Nahonidus althon.uli he had 1(! 

shut luinselP ui)(??), was taken prisoner in Babylon. I'ntil the end 

of tin- month. shields(?) 

of Gutium surrounded the gates of K-a^il. No weapons were in IT 

Ks.-iiriril and in the other temples 

and no standard had been br.m-ht in. On Marche-van .">d, Cyrus IS 

entered Babylon. 

The Inu-ini- lay down before him. IVaee was eoiilirmed to the city. ID 

Cyrus pronounced peace to 

all Babylon. Qobryas, his ^overiior, he appointed governor ill 20 

BabyloD and 

from Kislev until Adar. the -'od> of Akkad. which Nabonidus had 21 

brought down to Babylon. 

unto their own cities he returned. On the iii-ht of the llth 22 

ftf arch eS van, Qobryaa against 

....the son of the king he killed. I"romthe27th Adaruntil \isan 215 
3d, mourning took place in Akkad.... 

All the people east down their he;ids. On the fourth day. when 21 
Canibysrs. son of Cyrus went 


25 a-na E-SA-PA-KALAM-MA-SUM-MU ki illiku 
Nairn sa pa 

26 (ki illi)-ku ina qati 45 dib-bu us-bi-nim-ma ki qfita Nabu 

27 (as-ma) 4r '-ri-e u ma*akig pat 45pi. ta 

mar sarri ana 

28 Nabu ana E-sag-gil is-xur ' u niqe ina pan Bel u su 

Column IV. 




e-ki 46 meP 1 - 


X 47 ? 1 - ik-ta-tur 


(is)-sak-kan arxu babu na-pi-il 


....E-an-nasaUbara 48ki 


bit mu-um-mu ittagi 




ina Babili 7 


Babili 17 is-kir-ma 

Hagen. Schraderhas "E. PA. Nabu-??" 
4fi Hagen. 

46 Hapen reads: sa Babil-aP 1 - 

47 DAN(?) 

is See Sb a53. 

to E-SA-PA-KAL AM-MA-SUM-MU, the prefect of Nebo who .... 25 

when he went, in his hand a message he brought, when the hands 26 

of Xebo 

javelins and quivers the son of the king unto 27 

.... Nebo turned to Esaggil, sacrifices before Bel and 28 

Column 1 1 \ 






. . . .the gate was destroyed, 


unto K-aima i'mni. . . . 


from the Bit-nmmmu he unit forth. 


in Babylon, 

. . . .he shut up l>;ibyhin. 




Column 7. 

L. 6. 'kimatsunu;' 'kimtu 'family, from 'kamu ' to bind, is a synonym 
of ' xammu' and ' altu,' both meaning family. ' Xammu,' which occurs 
in the famous name ' Xammurabi,' is a derivative from the stem ' xam- 
amu ' = to bind or fix firmly. See E. J. Harper, Beitrage, ii. 412 ; ' lux- 
mum ' construed with ' tereti ' = oracles. Of. also V R. 43. 36d. and 
II R. 57. 27 cd., cited by him, and compare further Haupt's Texts, p. 
36. 1. 882, where 'xammu' is explained by the same ideogram as 
'ecedu' bind, surround, gather. (See also Zimmern, Busspsalmen, 
81 and Delitzsch, Kossaeans. 72 rem. 2.) Another derivative of this 
stem is ' xammamu' =region, enclosed district, I R. Sargon Barrel- 
Cylinder 1. 9. (Lyon's Sargon. 66. 9.). 'altu,' the second synonym of 
' kimtu' is a rare word from the stem ^HN to settle, and must be 
carefully distinguished from ' altu' = ' assatu ' =wife- For this word 
and the passages where it is found, see Jager, Beitrage, ii. 303. 

For the ideogram ' im-ri-a ' = ' kimtu ' cf. Belser, Beitrage ii. 137 : 
I R. 70. c. II 1. 2. In IV R. 10. 37. b., however, we find ' im-ri-a ' = 
' rusumtu,' marsh. See Briinnow, List, 8396 ff. 

L. 10. 'Ammananu.' Hommel thinks this is identical with the Baby- 
lonian-Elamitic ' Amnanu ' (See Lehmann, Samassumukin, p. 76. rem. 
2). For 'Amnanu,' probably near the border of Elam, see 1. c. 40 and 
76. Hagen Beitrage ii. 235 reasoning from Tig. Jun. rev. 76 and 
Sennach. Kuj. 4. 12, believes that 'Ammananu ' of the Annals was a 
part of Lebanon. It appears impossible to decide at present whether it 
was an Elamitic or Palestinian mountain. 

L. 11. 'gippatu' some sort of tree or reed, for whose cultivation 
water was needed, as it was planted by the side of canals cf. Hebr. 
HiDVfi^ an ^ i* 1 this connection, Jensen, Zeitschr. fur Assyriologie, iii. 
317, 85 and Hagen, op. cit., p. 236. 

L. 19. I have followed Haven's readin.u 1 OAZA instead of Wincklcr's 
' sigisse' = 'niqu.' 

Column II. 

L. 2. 'Istumegu' = Astyages. The Median empire, an outline of 
whose history has been given above, fell into the hands of the I Vvsians 
in about the year 549 B. C. According to this account which probably 
belongs to the sixth year of Nabonidus, the Median army rebelled 
against Astyages their king and delivered him over to (Vrus, king of 
the tributary state of Anssin (S<><- ( 1 yr. Cyl. note to I. 21.). Tlie 


then marched upon and plundered Kcbatana the Median capital, soon 
^tting possession of the entire empire. 

A>t\'aj i es was the son of the great Cyaxares, conqueror of Nineveh. 
About the ultimate fate of Astyages there are various accounts. Ac- 
cording to Herodotus 1. 130, Cyrus kept him prisoner, but did not mal- 
treat him. The only author, as far as I know, who asserted that the 
Median king was killed by Cyrus, was Fsocrates in his funeral oration on 
Kvagoras. king of Salamis (See Oration, D. 38. where it is asserted that 
Cyrus killed the father of his mother, which is probably an allusion to 
Astyages. with regard to whose relationship to Cyrus, we may suppose 
that Isocrates followed Herodotus.) According to Ctesias, Cyrus 
treated Astyagi-s like a father and sent him to a distant province. 
Some years later, being summoned to court, Astyages was left behind 
in a desert by the Persian servants of Cyrus who thus thought to do 
their master a service (ef. Persica, 25). 

Astyages has survived in the tradition of the East under the name of 
' LJB JVt ' or in Armenian 'Adjiahak.' .Moses of Chorene. Hist. Annen. 
edition. \Vhiston, p. 77. -.rives the 1'orni ' Dahak.' Lenormant explained 
the name as meaning 'biting serpent.' a translation rightly rejected 
by Oppert. Weisbach, Acham. Inschr. zweiter Art, p. 20. remarks 
that such an epithet would be more befitting a chief of the Sioux 
Indians than a great kinir ! Weisbach derives the name from the 
Aryan stein 'aisti' lance and 'yuga,' a formation from the well 
known >tem 'yiij,' several of whose numerous meanings may be under- 
stood in this connection; thus. ' lie connected with, set in motion,' 
etc. The name may mean 'he who wields a lance '(V). \Vinckler, with- 
out -ullicieiit reason, regarded Asi;-. neither a Mede nor a 
descendant of Cyaxares. but as a Si-ytli who with his barbarous hordes 
had gotten possession of .Media ( riitrr-iK-hiin'jcn. pp. 124 It'.). For 
the fall of the Median power under Astya-jvs. ef. among others Biidin- 
ner. AllS'jangdes Medisehell lleiches. 1 

L. .">. 'A-amtanu ' see Kr-ilinsdir. und das alte Testament, 378. 524. 

i was evidently pronounced like Arabic k ghain,' as seen 

f'i'oi" NAtSnX. ( S(l( ' Haupt, Assyr. K \'o\vel, p. 12, note.) 

L. 5. 'Tema'. Evidently not a quarter of Babylon, (Ilommel, 
Gesch.779; Pinches. Transactions of the Society for Biblical Arch;c- 
olo-y. vii. 152) but a place at some distance from tin; capital. The 
king would hardly have stopped so long in a quarter of the city without 
attending the yearly feast of Marduk. Tide's conjecture ((Jesch. 470. 
n. 1) that Tema was probably not in Akkad. because it is especially 
stated that the king was in Tema and the son of the king in Akkad, 
seems improbable, because Akkad was the general name for all Baby- 
lonia (See Lehmann. Samaisinnukin, 71 f.) It is not possible at present 
to determine the exact situation of Tema. 

L. 6. 'isinnu akitu.' See also Pinches' Texts, 15. No. 4. 7. The 
New Year's festival or 'zagmuku,' (='res satti,' nJL^Jl tP'N"U See 


East India House Inscription, VII. 23 ' ina isinim /agmiiku'; ' isinnii,' 
pi. ' isinate ' (see 1 R. 66. 3. 7.)= festival, probably from a stem 

Cf. 'Assinnu ' a sort of priest, II R. 32. 22. ef. = ideogram UR. SAL. 
(cf. also IV R. 31. 12.) UR, SAL, is also explained II R. 36. 49 e, by 
sibku sa pi ' : - 'weeping or lamenting(?) with the mouth.' May not 
the duties of the Assinnu ' have been connected with lamentation, 
perhaps at funeral rites(?). 

The form ' isittu,' S b - 263, must, as Zimmern remarked, (Buss- 
psalmen, 31. n. 1,) stand for 'isintu' a feminine formation from the 
same stern as ' isinnu.' For ' isinnu ' cf. further ASKT. 80. 18 ; V. 31. 
50 ; Nimrod Epic. 75. 6. ', Sennach. Smith. 119 ; Asb. Smith. 119. 17. ; 
126. 77. 

' akitu ' perhaps as Hagen points out, 1. c. 238, some sort of sacrifice. 
(See East India House Inscr. IV. 7 ; ' Bit niqe akiti girti.') It is pos- 
sible, as Hagen suggests, that ' akiti girti ' in this passage is in apposi- 
tion to and denotes a peculiar kind of ' niqe.' 

For ' akitu ' see I R. 67. c. I 35. and Pinches' Texts 17. 7. 

L. 8. 'Urigallu is-ruq.' According to S c - Ib. 10 ff., SES. GAL. = 
' urigallum ' ' massu biti,' i. e. the ' massu ' of the house or temple, a 
priestly office of very high rank. We should compare here ASKT. 76. 
18, where the god Ea is called the exalted ' massu,' and Pinches' Texts, 
17. 1.15 If. where two brothers of the king are mentioned as being 
endowed with the office of SES. GAL ; ' Samas-ium-ukin axi-ya talime 
ana sarrut Kardunyas usadgila paimssii. 'Asur-mukin-paleya axiya 
tardinni ana SES. GAL-ut ugdallip(?) ina pan ---- Asur-etil-same-u- 
erciti-bala(t)su axiya gixra ana SES. GAL-ut pan Sin asib xarrani 

I prefer to adopt here the reading ' tardinnu ' in place of the usual 
' kuddinnu,' regarding it as a word descriptive of close relationship, 
probably meaning elder brother, and as a derivative of the stem ' radii ' = 
' to copulate.' Compare 'radu' and 'ridu' synonyms of 'maru* child, 
II R. 30. No. 3. 1. 30 ff. 'Tardinnu' must be considered a similar 
formation to ' terdinnu ' II R. 30. No. 3. 46. The exact force of the 
three words ' talimu,' ' tardinnu,' and ' gixru ' in the inscription of 
Asurbanipal just cited is by no means clear. Lehmann, Samassumu- 
kin, L 3 . 12, translates ' tardinnu ' which he reads ' kuddinnu,' by 
'unrechtmassig' and p. 30 by 'unebenbiirtig.' Tiele in his review 
of Lehmann, Ztschr. fur Assyriologie, vii. p. 76 prefers to regard the 
three words as indicative of grades of nmk(?). 

The real meaning of 'urigallum' is probably elder brother. See IV 
R. 58. 33. where the ideogram SES. GAL occurs in parallel with k N I N. 
GAL-ti' = 'axati rabiti' = elder sister, and II R. '2!>. (>.'>. b IV.. where we 
find 8ES. GAL. = 'urigallum ' eompaml with 'tardinnu' and 'dub- 
bussu.' For the phonetic reading ' u-ri-gal-lum,' see S cb - 1. 13, where 
we find it descriptive of the ideogram .MAS. MAS. 

L. 10. Winckler lias omitted ' sarni ' liet'oiT 'ana Nisani.' 


L. 13. 'Diirkarasu 'also to be found II R. 52. No. 2. 651. (Hagen.) 

L. 15. 'Parsu 'see Behistun 1. 14. 41 ; 2. 47. In the inscriptions of 
tin- second sort we find the form ' Parsin ' (See Weisbach Achamc 
niden Inschriften zweiter Art. 106.). ' Parsu ' in the Annals appears to 
have l)eon used synonymously with 'Ansan.' Thus. Cyrus seems to 
have been called indifferently by the Babylonians either 'Kins of An- 
san ' or of ; Parsu.' Compare Annals c. II. 1. 1 and 1. 15 and see also in 
this connection, Amiand. Melanges llcnier *JH5. 265). 

Whether the name ' Parsua ' (P.arsuas) which in early days seems to 
have heen applied cither to Northern Media or to some part of that 
territory, (see Tielc. Gesch. '21. 111."). iMI. HC',. 2<i:5. and llonmiel, Gresch. 
71!>. 7.'5!). 740. 744) can be identified with the later l Parsu ' = Persia. 
inii-t remain a matter of doubt. Tiele Mlesch. .'!<)[) suggested that the 
n:iine ' I'arsiia ' may have been applied to Persia as early as the time of 
Sennaeherib. It dors imt srem impossible that the old ' Parsua ' may 
have heen the home of IVrsian tribes, who. migrating to the South, 
earrird the name to the regions about Khun; i.e. to the Klamitic Ansan. 
H. H. Howarth in the Academy. No. lo:s:>. p. J1 MS!2) argued with 
-nine reason, however, that the |Vr>ian tribes could not have occupied 
Parsua loin:, or we would find Aryan words in Assyrian, because the 
rians. as is well known, overran and occupied the country in early 
times. In Academy. No. HM1. p. .",7:5. he mentions as additional evidence 
that the geographical and personal names of 'I'arsua 1 are not Aryan. 
It i- practically impossible at present to determine the original habitat 
of the Persians. It is not unlikely, however, as Amiaud has suggested, 
(Melanges llenier. 'Jill' that the names ' Anfon ' and ' Parsu ' after the 
IVr.-ian invasian of the former territory became synonymous in much 
the Baine manner as (iaiil and France. Britain and Kndand. 

L. 111. ' Diqlat irab.' Accordim: to the latest collation by IFa.iron 
(Boitr. ii. 240) the sign k rah' is dear. The meaning 'crossed ' is there- 
fore by no means certain although to be expected. The form may 
signify 'approached.' The only other forms at all similar to this are 
those cited by llagen: \'\y... I5eitra-e ii.(Jl. erabuni' and \Vinckler, 
Keilschrifttexte.:;:;. irabbanni ' = entrusted to me.' 

It has been conjectured that this passage is a reference to the Lydian 
campaign, the only great victory bet-ween the sixth and tenth years of 
Nabonidus for which the Tigris would have to be crossed.* The 
advancer of this theory evidently forgot that fully two months would 
have been necessary for the Persians to go to the Halys, whereas 
according to the cuneiform account, Cyrus collected his troops in 
Nisan (.March -April) and entered the enemy's country in Iyar(May 

* Compare Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot, 125, who supplies 'Isparda,' = Sardis for the 
name of the place. Unger, however, Kyaxares und Astyages, p. 6, objects quite 
rightly that the form Isparda ' is not the Babylonian form, which would have been 
'Saparda.' 'Isparda' is the form found in the Achaemenian Inscriptions of the 
' second sort.' 



June). The short space of time occupied on the march shows conclu- 
sively that the object of the attack cannot have been Lydia, but was 
probably some country necessary ae a basis of operations against, that 
kingdom. Because of the doubtful meaning of ' irab,' there is even no 
authority for supposing that this place is on the west bunk of the 
Tigris, as did Evers, Emporkommcn der persischen IMacht, !). n. 1. All 
that we can say is that the land to which ( 1 yrus went, must, have bem 
below Arbela, not far from the Tigris. Certainly neither Meyer's 
idea, that this is a reference to the battles in the Median provim-rs 
west of the Euphrates, Gesch. p. <>0:>, nor Winckler's conclusion that 
the country was Singara or some independent state between the rivers, 
is satisfactory (See Untersuchungen, 131). 

L. 17. oillit sa ramnisu.' His own governor; probably a shaphel 
feminine formation of ' elu ' = to go up. 'Sulit' would mean ' one who 
is set up or appointed,' with feminine ending as in ' pixatn ' = prefect, 
governor. Hagen translates in this passage 'garrison,' citing Assyr. 
Worterbuch, 427. 1 Iff. where Delitzsch demonstrates that ' sulu ' can 
mean 'bring soldiers into a fortress.' We may note hero, that the 
words ' salutu,' V 11. 11. 11 f., and ' sulutu,' Sennach. c. IV. 48. = lord- 
ship, usually understood as derivatives from ' salu " to decide (Xim- 
mern, Busspsalmen, p. 99), may be regarded equally well as abstract 
formations from the shaphel of 'elu.' 

L. 22. ' Elammiya ' = Elamite. I have adopted Hagen 's translation 
here as being preferable to the attempts of former translators who 
understood the word as denoting 'Elam' (see Saycc, Fresh Light ; 
Floigl, Cyrus und Hcrodot. 58 ; Halevy, Melanges, 2. etc.). I know no 
other example of a gcntilic ending ' ya.' 

This mutilated passage may indicate that there was an invasion of 
the Persians from the side of Elam, possiblj 7 directed against Erech- 
linger, Kyax. und Astyages, 7, believed this passage, 11. 21-22, to refer 
to the invasion of Lydia. The situation of Erech so far to the south- 
west, however, would preclude the possibility of an attack on Lydia 
from this quarter. 

L. 23-4. See Delitzsch's opinions as given by Hagen regarding the 
restoration of these lines. It is of course impossible to conjecture 
with any certainty to what events the lines missing between Cols. II. 
and III. -referred. Ilagen suggested with some show of reason that the 
Lydian campaign may have been here described. AVe have seen that 
the country alluded to in 1. l(i cannot have; been Lydia. (See above 
note to Col. II. 16.) It seems probable, therefore, there being no other 
place in the A nnals for the allusion, that, if there were any reference to 
the Lydian war in this account, it would have been just before the 
description of the capture of Babylon ; i. e. just before ( 1 ol. III. 1 
cannot, agree with Winckler's conclusion that, because the chronicle 
gives no account of any hostilities in the seventh and eighth years ol' 
Nabonidus' reign, the Lydian campaign must have taken place during 

those years, [f the Annals were completely preserved we should cer- 
tainly expect to find mention made of so important a campaign as the 
Lydian. it .-eems permissible to suppose that the- records of the 
seventh and eiuhth years are silent, because no events of tiny impor- 
tance occurred tit thatf time. We may be allowed therefore, pending 
further discoveries, to place the Lydian campaign as late as from the 
twelfth to the sixteenth year of Nabonidus and to conclude that the 
account of it in the Annals is lost with the missing lines at the end of 
Col. II. 

( 'nliimu III. 

L. 7. 'tamtiim BAL-tum' = = 'Saplitum.' For this use of BAL cf. 
II R. 30. 3. c. ' An-ta-bal-ki ' = = ' elitum u sapiltum ; in II. 62. 63a. ki- 
an-hal = ditto (sa-pil-tnm ?) n e-li-tum. 

L. !l. 'Stir .M;irad-da.' For 'Maradda' see I )elit/,scli. Wo lag das 
I'aradies, 220 and for 'KU' op. cit. p. 21S. ' Xamama ' was evidently 
from this passage and the following, the chief deity of l Kis.' The 
reading is still uncertain. For tin- name compare Il.(>1.52f. 'hit za- 
ni:i-ni:i -a Kii,' written, however, with the ciiaracter 'ma, 1 w mal,' l ga.' 

According to II 15. 7)7.70, this deity is ei|uivalent to Adar (Ninib). 
(See further l>rmmow. List. No. 117U1.) The only compound known to 
me in which the name (u-mrs. is the proper name. ' /amamanadinsiimii ' 
kim: ol' Uabylon and eonteiniiorary of 'Aviirdan. the grandfather of 

Ti.lath pileser I. (See Tiele, Geschichte, loi. 148. 

L. 10. ' Xafsankalama ' was the cent re of culture for the old ' sarrut 

kibrat crbitti.' Salmanassar I I. and Ti-lath pileser I I I . offered sacri 
lices there. (See Lehiiiann. ' Sama^umukin. 95, 97, 98 and Delitzsch, 
I'aradies. 21!)). 

'Return.' See II I !.:;:>. (J2. e. = ' ki-i-tuni.' (Uninnow. List, No. 

L. 11. ' >a eli -anie n sapla ^anie." It is perfectly possible to read 
'LM' here a< in II R,. 50. 23. when- it is explained by ' sa-mu-u ' = 
heaven, lla'jcn I'catls it a- 'Sam' = wind, and translates the passage; 

' Akkad of the part above as well as that below the ' Windrirli- 

bung(?),' referring the relative 'Sa' to 'Akkadi.' (See IJritra^i, ii. p. 
24IJ.) It seems to me, however, possible to understand ' sa ' as refer- 
rim: tn 'ilani.' ETagen's objection to the translation, 'above and below 
the atmosphere.' applied to images <if the deitio. does not really hold 
irnod. \Vliy may the reference not be to the images of the lilijhcr and 
/nidi- ijods ; i. e. of those <i/>r< and those l><l<nr the vault of the 

heaven? (For the Babylonian heaven, see Jensen. Kosmologie, pp. 
4 10.) 

L. 12. ' rpe ki ='0pis. 5 So Tincho see literature cited by Hagen, 

I'.eiira-e. ii. 2i:J2H an<l note 1. llommel, (iesch. 7S5 read 'Kis;' 
others 'Hutu,' a place in S. Babylonia. So Halevy, Melanges, 3; 
SaycM', Fresh Lidit. 171. and iormerly Pinches, Transactions, vii. 174. 
n. 1. (See also op. cit. 12 ; Evers, op. cit. 13, n. 1.) 


1 Sal sail at.' The situation of this canal(?) is doubtful. It seems 
probable according to llauen that the first conflict took place at Opis, 
after which the Babylonians under Belsarucur retired to the ' Salsallat,' 
where they were defeated. 

L. 14. With regard to the reading of ' BAL,' I fully agree with 
Hagen, op. cit., 244. 

L. 15. Gutium, according to Delit/sch, Paradies, 233, was the upper 
region of the Adhem and Diyala. Compare in this connection the 
tablet cited by Hagen, 8 1-7-27- 22 which plainly places Gutium between 
Akkad and Flam. The province may have included the sources of the 
Adhem. The Guti were nomads on the Assyro-Babylonian border in 
Asurbanipal's time. (See Tiele, Gesch. 378.) 'Agumkakrime ' refers 
in V R. 33. c. 1. 38. to ' Alman sar mat Gu-ti-i saklati,' for whom 
see Delit/sch, Paradies, 205. (Keilinschr. Bibl., iii. 1. 137.) 

L. 16. ' tukku ' = shield is possibly from |/' taku ' = to lift up, syno- 
nym of 'nasuV (See Delitzsch, Beitrage, i. 198.) It seems to be a 
form like k surru ' beginning, from -/ saru.' The ' su ' before the 
word is, as Hagen points out, merely the determinative for skin or 
leather, of which shields were made. The former reading ' sutukku ' 
was as incorrect as the reading ' sunadi ' in I H. Sennach. III. 80, for 
1 su nade,' where 'su ' is ' masku,' determinative, and 'nade ' is plural of 
' nadu' = HfrO = bottle, i. e. leather bottles. 

L. 17. The troops of Gobryas had surrounded the temples, perhaps to 
prevent any attempts on the part of the Babylonians who might organize 
a rebellion to use the temples and shrines as storehouses for arms. The 
exact sense of the line is not clear. Tiele, Geschichte, 472. n. 3, 
believed that the remnant of the Babylonian party had taken refuge in 
the great temple of Esaggil which was consequently besieged by troops 
of Gutium. The idea of Pinches, Transactions, and Sayce, Fresh 
Light, 171, that this passage records a rebellion of the troops of 
Gutium against Cyrus is most improbable. 

' be -la ' = weapons. See III. 66. c. III. 13. 'bi-e-la-a.' The usual 
plural form is of course 'bele,' cf. I 11. 47. c. VI 48 ; IV 11. 48. 1. a ; V 
R. 5. 62. 

L. 18. 'simanu' means standard; cf. Sennach. Prism. V 78-79; 
' kima mixi gabsi sa samutum sirnani u munnisunu usarda cir erciti 
sadilti ;' like a mighty storm of violent rain 1 made their standards 
arid ' munni ' (weapons ?) be strewn over the wide earth. In connection 
with the passage, 11. 17-18 in the Annals, compare especially VR. 6. 17. 
'bele qarabi, simanii u minima epes taxa/i.' 'Simanu' is a formation 
from the stem ' asamu,' |/' wasama,' like ' lidanu ' from 'alAdn,' t k \\alada,' 

L. 19. ' xarine ina panisu irpuduni' = the 'xarine' lay down before 
him, i. e. in homage. The word 'xarine' lias not yet been found else- 
where. It may denote some sort of officials or nol>les(?). 

L. 2)!. Krom a new collation of the inscription Prof. Friedrieh 
Delit/sch has recently explained this passage as a record of the slaying 


of tlio king's son. lie says that at the- beginning of 1. 23 he believes 
that lit 1 saw plainly the sign TU11, before which, however, was a very 
narrow sign like ' si' <>r 'a.' ' Sa ' being the more probable reading, he 
proposes, pending further discoveries, to read ' ina inuxxi SA;' i. e. 
"issakin ;' i. e. he went against and killed the king's son. See Hagen, 
op. cit. p. '2\~. 

The former tendency was to refer this passage to the death of the 
king or of his wife. Budinger, Die neucntdcckten Inschriften liber 
Cyrus, 14., levers, Das Kmporkommen der persischen Maclit unter Cy- 
rus, and Ilalevy. .Melanges. 4. all considered this line to refer to the 
death of Nabonidus. Meinhold. Diss. .">(>. n. 2, referred the allusion to 
Belshazzar, reading k the king died, and considering him king of the 
city. \Vincklcr. Dntersuchungen, p. 1").") gives traces of the sign 'DAM 
= assatu = wife (also Pinc-hes) which would give the reading ' the wife 
of the king died.' 

For discussion regarding the death of l>elsha//ar, see above. 

L. 24. 'qaqqadsunu ilbinuni.' 'cast down their heads in deep grief 

cf. the familiar ' labanu appi 'casting down of tin- face in worship, 
ASKT.,115,2; so, 14; V R.10.31; [ V R. 26. 66. b ; also I U, Anp. 
II. b'51, 'ina labana ' with prayer.' 

Column IV. 

L. (i. 'bit niilliiniil most probably the college of sages, priests of 
Ka. attached to the court and dedicated to |<]a as god of supreme wis- 
dom ; cf. V. (!">. '.\'l. where Xabonidus speaks of having collected the 
Yii<|Ati ;Uih bit ninnimu ' and 1 V '-.\. n. I.e. I V. '1~* : ' eniima alpa ana bit 
mummu tu>eribu.' In the inscription of Merodach IJala-lan II.. pub- 
lished by I'eiser and \\'inckler. Keilinschr. Hibliothek, iii. 1. p. 1S(J. 
1. "). b. Ma himself is called the ' ninnimu ban kala ' = source of wisdom, 
creating all things. 'Mummu' 18 undoubtedly the ' .M<.<r,/"< ' of hamas- 
cins. CDe primis principiis.' Cap. 12.")). It is probably a reduplication 
of ' mu ' = water i. 6. 11111 + 11111 (llatipt). I n ASKT. Syl. 51,'!. we iind 
'mummu' and 'shiitnm' rxplained by the same ideogram. Ka being 
tin- -oil of the deep and of wisdom it would be peculiarly appropriate 
that his sanctuary be called ' the house of t he waters/ The term 'mum- 
mu. then, by a natural development of ideas, came to mean 'wisdom 
or 'art.' 1 see no reason, therefore, with Jensen. Kosm. .'J, to dis- 
tinguish two words 'mummu ;' the one being the same stem as in ' um- 
manu ' art isan(?) ; i.e. |tDN '" V '-*. ''' -'' we find ' mummu ' = 
1 bi-cl-tmn.' a word which may In- a derivative from the stem v/'TO 
be moist and then plenteous : of. bnlu = cattle, F II. 27. G2. b.; Tiglath. 
c. VI. S2. etc. The Hebr. ^VQ means offspring, l proventus,' and 
rian 'biiltu' = sexual power. (See ASKT. 81. 10., IV 11. 2. 17. 
1>. e. ' -allu sabTiltula isn, the demons who have no sexual power; 
also | K. Senn. Vl.l: Fast India I louse I user. c. I X. .Tl. and Deluge, 1. 
"J.'!.'! -cubat bultisii = the garment of his private parts.) 



(1 >Belshazzar a)1 , the kins, gave a great feast ll)2 to a thousand of his 
lords and in the presence of the thousand drank wine. (2) Belshazzar 
commanded, being under the influence of the wine' 1 , to bring the 
vessels 13 of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken 
from the temple which was in Jerusalem, in order that the king and 
his wives and his concubines might drink out of them 1 . (3) Then they 
brought the vessels of gold which they had taken away from the temple 
of the house of God, which is in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, 
his wives 1 and his concubines drank out of them 2 . (4) They drank wine 
and praised the gods of gold and silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone. 

(5) At that same moment came forth ll) fingers of a man's hand and 
wrote opposite 101 the chandelier on the plaster' 02 of the wall' of the 
king's palace ; and the king saw the hand e) which wrote. (6) Then the 
king changed color 10 and his thoughts terrified him and the joints of 
his hips were loosened 1 and his knees knocked one against the other-. 
(7) The king called with a loud voice to summon the magicians, the 
Chaldseans 1 and the horoscopists. The king spoke and said to the 
wise men of Babylon that any man who could read this writing and 
show its interpretation' should wear 2 scarlet :jb) and a chain 4 of gold upon 
his neck and should rule as third c) in rank in the kingdom . (8) Theri 
all the wise men came in, but could not read the writing nor show its 
interpretation to the king. ((Jj Then the king Belshax/ar was greatly 
disturbed and his color changed and his lords were confounded*. 

(10) But the queen 1 entered the banquet hall by reason of the exclama- 
tions 2 of the king and his lords and the queen spoke 'and said: () 
King, live forever 3 ; let not thy thoughts terrify thee nor thy color be 
(hanged. (11) There is :i) a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of 
the holy gods and in the days of thy father enlightenment and under- 
standing :md wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, 
and the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father appointed him chief of the 
hierogrammatists lb) , the magicians, the riialdu'ans, and the horoseopists 
aye even the king thy father 2 . (1 '^l>ecause an extraordinary power 
and knowledge and understanding to interpret dreams and to show 
hidden matters and to solve riddles were found in Daniel whom the 

* The numerical references refer to the critical notes and the letters to the 
appended linguistic remarks. 


king called Beltesha/./ar 1 ' ; so let Daniel bo summoned, in order that 
In- may show the interpretation. 

<13) Then Daniel was brought in before the kin- (and) the king spoke 
u ml said : So thou art Daniel 1 of the sons of the exiles of Judah, 
whom 2 the king my father brought tlmm .lud.-ea. ^1 have heard con- 
cerning thee that the spirit of tlie gods is in thee and that enlighten- 
ment and understanding and extraordinary skill are found in thee. 
1 'A nd now the wise men (and) 1 the magicians have heen brought in 
before me. in order that they should read this writing and make known 
its interpretation to me. but they are not abb- to show the interpreta- 
tion of the thing. ll!l 'IJut 1 have heard concerning thee that thou art 
able to make interpretations and solve riddles. So if tlmn canst read 
the writing and make known to me its interpretation, tlum shalt wear 
scarlet and a chain of gold upon thy neck and shalt rule as the third in 
rank in the kingdom. 

(17) Then Daniel answered and said before the king: Let thy gifts be' l) 
to thyself 1 and give thy pre<ents to another; yet I will read the writing 
for the king and will make known the interpretation to him-. (18 >0 
King 1 , the .Most High (iod gave a kingdom and greatness and glory and 
might unto Nebuchadne/./ar thy father'-'. '"'-"And on account of the 
greatness which lie gave him. all peoples, nations and languages were 
trembling" and fearing bcfor" him. Whomsoever he would' he killed 
and whomsoever he would he kept alive ; and whomsoever he would he 
exalted and whomsoever he would he brought low. '-'"IJut when his 
heart was high and his spirit was haughty with pride, lie was hurled 
from the throne of his kingdom and they took his glory from him, 
'-''and he wa> CftSl out ' from among the children of men and his reason 
wa- made like' 1 to the beasts and hisdwelling was with the herds 1 . They 
fed him gras> like oxen and his body was moist with tin-dew of the heav 
ens. until he discovered that the .Most High (!ol is ruler over the king- 
doin of men. and that whomsoever lie will lie appoints over it-. ''-"-''IJut 
thou Belshazzar his >on hast not humbled thine heart although fliou 
knewestall this. ( - :! 'IJnt thou ha>t exalted thyself agai n>t the Lord of 
the heavens and they have brought the vessels of His house before 
thee; and thou and thy lords, thy wives and concubine-; were drinking 
wine from them, and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of 
brass, iron, wood, and stone, which neither see. nor hear, nor notice 1 ; 
but the (iod in whose hand are thy life and all thy paths-, Him thou 
hast not honored. '-^Theu 1 the hand was sent forth from Him and 
this writing was engraved. 

(25) And this is the writing which was written : There have been 
counted a mina. a shekel and two half ininas. 1 1 (2G) This is the inter- 
pretation of the thing : Miua (Iod has counted thy kingdom and fin- 
ished it, '-"'Shekel thou ha-t been weighed in the balances and found 
wanting. (2K) Half-mina thy kingdom has been divided and given to 
the Medes and Persians. 1 


(29>The.n IVlsha/zar gave orders to clothe 1 Daniel in scarlet and a 
chain of gold about his neck and that they should proclaim publicly 
concerning him that he be the third ruler in the kingdom. (30) ln that 
same night waa Belshazzar king of tin; Chaldseans slain (:}l) and Darius 
the Median received the kingdom, being sixty-two years old. 


Verse 1. Note 1. Belshazzar, as stated before, is identical with 
Helsarugur, the son of Nabonidus the last king of Babylon. 

Note 2. At such a feast the king would probably sit facing his lords 
at a separate table ; cf . I. Sam. 20, 25 where the king sat during his 
meal on a special seat by the wall, and in this connection, see also fig. 
33 in Kaulen's Assyrien und Babylonien, p. 54, representing an A 
ian king taking his meal surrounded by his servants and protected by 
the gods. According to Athenneus, Deipnosophistae, Bk. IV. 26 on 
the authority of Heraclides of Cuma in the second part of his Paras- 
keuastika, this was also the custom of the Persian kings at festivals. 
(Cf. v. Lengerke, Daniel, p. 243.) Posidonius (100 B. C.) De Parth. I. 
v. in Athen. 4. 38, quoted Pusey, 383 n. 2 gives the same account of the 
Parthians. For ancient customs regarding the royal table see further 
Jahn, Biblical Archeology, transl. by Upham (1849), I 227. 'In the 
presence of = before, facing them. has l Karlvavrt.' It is not neces- 
sary to translate by 'propinare ' with Bertholdt, Dan. 364, Havernick, 
Dan. 174, etc. 

Verse 2. Note 1. The author evidently regarded this as a ter- 
rible profanation (see v. 23). Haverniek's strange idea (Dan., 175 ff.) 
that Belshazzar wished to honor Jehovah by using the sacred vessels, 
finds no confirmation in the text. That the vessels were not sent for 
until the king was well in his cups, seems to show that the author 
wished to represent the command as a drunken whim. These vessels 
were brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the 
first capture of Jerusalem (597 B. C.) in the reign of Jeconiah (II. 
Kings 24. 13), and were restored by Cyrus in the first year of his reign 
at the time of the return of the exiles. (Kzra 1. 7ff.) 

Verse 3. Note 1. The wife of the king who held the rank of queen 
was among the Assyrians and Babylonians usually she who bore the 
first son. (Delitzsch-Miirdtcr, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyricns- 
p. 118.) As it is well known that the greatest, freedom of life pre- 
vailed at Babylon, especially with regard to the relations between the 
sexes, there is nothing incongruous in the statement that women were 
present at feasts. According to Curtius 5. 5, they were admitted to 
drinking bouts. He says with respect to the shocking immorality of 
the women at these feasts; ' lA'ininarnm convivia inenntinin in princi 
pio modest, us est habitus : dein siininia quaeque ainicnla exmmt, panla- 
piidorem profanant ; ad iiltininni (honos auribns sit) ima cor- 


porum vclamonto projiciunt : nee meretricum hoc dcdecus est sed matro- 
narum virginumque apud quas comites habetur vulgati corporis vilitas.' the Persian customs in this matter, accounts vary. Ac- 
cording to Joscphus it does not seem to have been proper for women to 
"ii by strangers. (See Antiquities, xi. 6. 1, referring to Esther i. 
10-12, the refusal of Yashti to obey the king's command to present 
If before him and his lords.) On the other hand, if the record of 
Esther can be trusted thus far. the queen consort seems to have been 
able to invite men high in rank to dint 1 with her and the king (Esther 
v.). In Herodotus, too (."). IS!), it is stated that not only the concubines, 
but also the young wives were accustomed to be present at Persian 
bs. Plutarch, however, asserts iSympos. I. 1.) that concubines 
wen- allowed at feasts but not wives. (See Pusey, Daniel, 382. n. 2.) 
This statement was applied to the Parthian s by Maerobius, Saturnalia, 
Lib. 7. 1.. cited by Ilavernick. Dan. ISO. (Compare Justin, 41. 3). 

It is worthy of notice that the Septnagint makes no mention of the 
presence of women in this passage of Daniel. TTavernick. Dan. ISO, 
thought that the translator deliberately omitted it, as being repugnant 
to his ideas of propriety. 

Note 2. -'H.d example of the repetition of the narrative 

Style. One rmlex olllits it alto-ether, -see HerthoMt, I )a 1) iel, .'JUS. 11. 4. 

Verse 5. Note 1. Opposite the light where the writing could be 
most easily seen. 

There is a double (Jreek translation of vv. 1. 4 and ^ (for the variants 
see Pnsey. Daniel. 502 '. In this verse the words written on the wall 
are transferred from verse *1~) and the following interpretation is given : 
'mane' it is numbered; ' phares ' it is taken away and, k thekel '- 
it is weighed. (See note to v. '2^.) 

No! lain stucco work or simple painted plaster. In the ruins 

of the palace at Nimroud a thin coatiu- of painted plaster was discov- 
ered by Layard. the colors of which when first found were still fresh 
and brilliant. (Nineveh 2. 2"' [go Kaulen. Assyrien mid Uaby- 

lonien. ]>. f>2 ; 10!); 2(12.) The interior of the later Babylonian houses 
Was frequently painted, on the lower half of the wall more in figures, 
but above ornamentally. (See Heber. /eitschr. fur Assyriologie, i. W.I). 
That plaster mixed with ashes was used for mortar is evident from the 
ruins of IT (Mugheir). but it is probably a later development. (So 
lieher, op. cit., 145.) 

Plaster seems to have been known also in Palestine; cf. Josephus, 
Antiquities, viii. ~y. 2., describing Solomon's palace 'but the other part 
up to the roof was plastered over and, as it were, embroidered with 
colours ami pictures.' (In this connection cf. Jahn, op. cit., \ 3!).) 

The feast of Pxdshax/ar is represented by the author to be in a room 
or hall, and not necessarily in a garden (v. Lengerke, 247), or pavilion 
(lia\ernick. is]). He/el (cited Bertholdt, Daniel, 30!)) thought that it 
was in the inner court of the palace (?). 


\ erse 6. Note 1. Some of the interpretations of the older commen- 
tators are very grotesque. For example, Grotius and Maldonatus, under- 
standing 'loins' as the private parts, translated 'urina defluebat.' It 
may he interesting in this connection to compare the famous passage of 
the prism inscription of Sennacherib; Col. 6. 11.19,20,21; Itarraku 
libbusun simttisun ucarrapu qirib narkabatisunu umassiru nicuisun ; 
'Their heart failed them ; with their urine they soiled their chariots. 
They let their excrement fall.' See Schrader's Keilinschriftliche 
Bibliothek, ii. pp. 110, 111. Sanctius (quoted Havernick, Dan. 184) 
thought that the passage in Daniel referred to an l emissio seminis' 
from fear ! For the expression of violent emotions of fear and suffer- 
ing ascribed to the loins see Ezekiel xxi. 12 : 

. 24 j-iypn Ton 

Compare also Deut. xxxiii. 11 : Vp 0*3/10 THO i- e. put them to 
confusion ; Isaiah xxi. 3 : OH V rf?nfO 'l^D W^D ]3~ty 

rn'ttriD *rf?iii) j?bt?p 't^frrfff n*V? WIN and 

Nahum ii. 2, referring to Nineveh : ' 

:*vnNfl W3p D 1 ?? ^51 

Note 2. Theodotion omits the translation of Jtf"Y? ^1 'one against 
another,' but another version has TOVTO TOVTU. See Field, Hexapla Cod- 

Verse 7. Note 1. The author applies the term u Chaldrcan " some- 
times to the ruling people of Babylon, as in ch. iii. 8 ; v. 30 ; ix. 1, but 
much oftener uses the name, as here, to denote a class of magicians, or 
as a general term for all magicians. 

It is a common error to consider the name Chaldean as synonymous 
with "Babylonian " or even "Old Babylonian." The Chaldaeans were 
clearly in ancient times a people quite distinct from the inhabitants of 
Babylonia. Their exact origin is extremely uncertain. It may be con- 
jectured with Winckler (Untersuchungen, 48), judging from the Semitic 
character of their proper names, that they were a Semitic people, or 
with Jensen (see Lchmann Samassumukin, p. 173), that they were 
" Semitised Sumerians," i. e. a non-Semitic race which by contact with 
Semitic influences had lost its original character. It seems probable 
that they came first from the South at a very early date, along the coast 
of the Persian Gulf. (For the old opinion of Gesenius, Heeren, Nie- 
buhr, etc., that the Kaldi came from Armenia and Kurdistan and con- 
quered Babylon shortly before the time of Nebuchadnezzar, see Tiele, 
(iochichte, 65.). Having settled in the region about Ur (. . . *V|fr$ 
D*"lt^D), they began a series of encroachments on the Babylonians 
proper, which after many centuries ended in the Chald.-ean supremacy 
under Nabopolassar and his successors. (That Nabopolassar was a 
Chahhran, see Tiele, op. cit. 421 ; Winckler, op. cit, (>() tr'., and for the 


history of the rise and development of the Chaldsean power, compare 
Tiele<;:>; 207 ; 211; 286 ; 287; 362; 422; Winckler, op. cit., pp. 47-04 : 
Pelattre, - Lea riialdeens," Paris, 1877.) 

The peculiar use of the name " Chaldaean " in this passage of Daniel, 
to denote a class of magicians, is not only entirely foreign to the usage 
of the ( )ld Testament, but is peculiar to the Greek and Roman writers. 
The term Xd/i'uim is used, for example, by Herodotus to denote the 
priestly class of T>abylonia, from whom he got his historical informa- 
tion. This transfer of the name of the people to a special class is prob- 
ably to be explained in the following manner. 

The sudden rise of the Babylonian Empire under the Chaldaean rule 
ol' Nebuchadnezzar, son of Xabopolassar, tended to produce so thorough 
an amalgamation of the Chaldaeans and Babylonians who had hitherto 
been racially distinct, that, in the course of time, no perceptible differ- 
ences existed between the two peoples. The name " Chaldaean," how- 
ever, lived on in the restricted sense already mentioned and for the 
following reasons. The Kaldi had sei/.ed and held from most ancient 
times tlie region of old Sinner, the centre of the non-Semitic culture. 
(See Lehmann, op. cit., 173.) It seems extremely probable that they 
were >o strongly influenced by this superior civili/.ation as to eventually 
adopt it as their own. and. as they were the dominant race, the priot-ly 
ca>te of that region became a Chaldican institution. It i- reasonable 
to conjecture that Southern I>abylonia. the home of the old culture, 
supplied IJabylon and other important cities with priests, who from 
their descent were correctly called ( 1 hald;ean> ; a name which in later 

times, owing to the amalgamation of the Chaldaaans and Babylonians 

when the term had lost its national force, became a distinctive appella- 
tion of the priestly easle. (Compare in this connection (lutbrod, 
Xtschr. fur Assyriolngie. vi. pp. 2! Ml'. Lehmann. op. cit. \~'.>, and I )e 
lattre. (Mialdeens, pp. 2! I .'!!.) It may not be out of place to remark 
here that. La-arde. thinking of DfT^i* "UH IT) 1 ?.} Isaiah xiv. 1 and 
iTl!T ^N* nV'MI "O^l p l^iali Ivi. >. believed that the original 
Levites or Jewish religious caste were those Kgyptians who had gone 
with the Israelites in their exodus from Kgypt, That Egyptians went 
out with Moses is probable from Ivxodiis xii. :;s (Numbers xi.4?), and 
that Egyptian influence is traceable in Israel appears evident from the 
examples Cited by Lagardr. He believed that .Moses was an Kgyptian 
and treated the account of his birth and exposure (Hxodus i. 1-10) as a 
fable similar to the Persian story that Alexander the ( i reat was a son of 
Darius. If Lagarde's theory be true, it explains why Moses found his 
chief support in the Levites. his fellow countrymen. Lagarde goes on 
to say that if the Levites were Egyptians, this explains why they were 
able to govern the Irsaelitish nation; i.e. by virtue of their higher 
culture ; it shows why the Levites do not appear as a regular tribe, 
and finally, it explains what the Egyptian sources relate about the 
Hebrew exodu.s. (See Lagarde Symm. 2. 35 and in connection with 


this theory cf. also Orientalia, H. 2. 1880, pp. 20-21 and Meyer, 
Geschichte, I. 3776.) 

The Chaldaean priestly caste was in all probability an hereditary 
order, as Diodorus Siculus (II. 29) stated. According to the same 
authority the priests were divided into three classes ; first, those who 
celebrated sacrifices and performed purifications, secondly, those who 
recited incantations to keep off evil spirits, and finally, those who 
explained portents and dreams. (See Tiele, Geschichte, 546.) This 
division is, as Tiele remarks, not contradicted by the inscriptions, 
although it cannot be known with certainty what Assyrian names may 
correspond to each of these classes. The scribes (Tupsarre), whose 
tutelary deity was Nebo, were also a priestly class, from whom all the 
literature of the times proceeded- 

Note 2. This translation seems perfectly clear, as already Bertholdt 
saw (Daniel, 372-373.). He translated it: 'Der darf den Purpur- 
rnantel und den goldenen Halsschmuck tragen.' There is no need to 
supply ' have ' as does our Authorized Version. 

Note 3. The darker purple scarlet was a color held in high esteem 
in antiquity. Compare Ezekiel xxvii. 7 ; Esther viii. 15, Herodotus 
3. 20, and Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1. 3. 2 : 8. 5. 18. We may remember 
the ' purpurati ' of the Persian kings who wore the /cavJuf . Oriental 
sovereigns sent robes of this color to their vassals very much as the 
popes sent the pallium in the middle ages (I Maccabees x. 20: xiv. 
43. 44.). The Syriac chronicle of the Jacobite primate Gregory Bar 
Hebraeus (1226-1286) relates how the Sultan Masud sent a purple robe 
to a favorite who had done him a service (cf. Havernick, Dan. 187.) 

Note 4. A gold chain seems to have been worn by the higher class 
Persians (Xenophon, Anab. 1. 8. 29). It was given as a sign of special 
favor (cf. Herodotus, 3. 20 : Anabasis, 1. 27, and Jahn, op. cit. $130). 

Note 5. Third in rank, i. e. after Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Prob- 
ably not " one of the board of three," following chapter vi. 3, although 
the translation is possible. Compare Kranichfeld, 9. 21 ; Hitzig, 81, 
and lately Prof. Siegfried Theologische Literaturzeitung, Jan. 10, 
1891, where he takes exception to Diisterwald's translation ' third in 
rank ' (Review of Diisterwald, Die Weltreiche und das Gottesreich 
nach den Weissagungen des Propheten Daniels, p. 63 cf. also Driver, 
Introduction, 460). Jerome remarked ' vel tertius post me, vel unus a 
tribus principibus quos alibi u rpior&rag" legimus.' LXX. 'l^omm rov 

TP'ITOV fttpovc Tf/q j1aai'/.t-;i<tr. (). Tpiro^ tv ri/ , iaatfai a iiov ap^et. (Cf. Joso 

phus Antiquities, x. 11.3.) The Syriac has ' w'thul'tlia iicshlt.' The 
old idea was that Daniel was to be second Vi/ier, the first Vizier 

being called the 'second' after the king. (Cf. Ksther x. .'1. Ilavcr- 

nick, 185; Lengerke, 251 ; Bertholdt, 374). Kautxsi-li, (Jrammatik des 
Biblisch-Ararnaischen, p. 121, thought that it probably meant after 

Nabonidus and the queen-mother. 


Verse 10. Note 1. The queen here must mean either the chief 
wife or the mother of the kins. It has been stated, however, in verses 
2 and 3 that the wives of the king were already present and this fact 
and the tone of command, which the author gives his "queen" in this 
passage seems to show that he considered her not the wife, but the 
mother of Belshazzar. That the queen-mother was meant was the 
opinion of the majority of the older commentators. Compare Len- 
gerke, 252 ; Kranichfeld, 221 ; Havernick, 191 ; Hengstenberg, 47. 318, 
etc. Note however that J. D. Micluelis, Daniel, p. 47 and Berth oldt 
believed that the wife of the king was meant. Josephus, Antiquities 
x, 11. 2, thought that it was the king's grandmother, etc., etc. 

The queen-dowager was a powerful and important personage in 
ancient times. (See I Kings xv. 13, II Chron. xv. 16.) As at present, 
she ruled during the minority of the king and probably always had 
an advisory voice in the management of the government. In modern 
Turkey, as was tin- case in ancient Egypt, the queen-mother is a 
weighty factor in political affairs. Among the Hebrews the queen- 
dowager ranked after the king but before his wives. (See II Kings 
xxiv. 15.) 

In tin- Assyrian letters the king's greeting to the queen-mother is 
of the most respectful character. Thus, in the letter translated by 
Delit/sch, Beitrage y.ur Assyriologie. i. 1ST 1S8. we find 'abitsarri ana 
iiniini sarri -ulmii ;Ui. -ulniu ana unimi sarri ' word of the king to the 
queen-mother, my greet in-.:, greeting to the queen mother.' 

When the king greets a subject In- uses the words ' libbaka lu tabka 

' make glad thy heart/ but in the message to the queen-mother such 
an address would be disrespectful. In spite of the honor accorded by 
the king to his mother, it is interesting to notice that he never calls 
her 'his Lady.' a fact to which Delit/scli lias called attention (I.e.) as, 
indicating the evident supremacy of the king. From the tone of the 
above mentioned letter the king was ready to carry out his mother's 
behests, but her commands must first have the royal sanction. For 
other references in the cuneiform inscriptions to the queen-dowager, 
of. Delit/sch. ..p. cit, 1S!. 1!)2. 

Note 2. ^p . Everything was in confusion, see verse !>. '- 

pC5^Dnt^O~and ^ 1(1 q'l'-'-u entered the hall to see what the trouble 

Ilit/ig's translation (Daniel, p. Si) is correct; ' Aus Aiilass der 
Keden.' Compare the Greek version, ii-:'ixi.rri -^v Myun> rav fJaaiMus nal 
(te-ytordvuv avrov. (See Field, Hexapla). Theodotion omits the words 
altogether. The Vul-ate has, 'proreqnac acciderat regi et optimati- 

blis CJUS.' LNX. ri'iri- i> -'xirn/tif i-i,n'/tn>-- ri/f .inni'/ innav Trrpl rov orj[j.t:iov. 

Note 3. ^H yti^yh ND^D i the regular salutation to the king, 
as in chapter ii. 4 ; iii. 9 ; vi. 7. 22 ; Neh. ii. 3 ; I Kings i. 31. This 
greeting was common also in Babylonian times ; see Delitzsch, Bei- 


. i. 239; 'May Nebo and Merodach give long days and everlast- 
ing years unto the king of the lands my lord,' and also op. cit. 242. 
In this connection Kaulen, Assyrian und Babylonien, 262, should be 

Verse 11. Note 1. Compare' chapter ii. 48. It is not historically 
probable that a Jewish prophet could have occupied such a position; 
first, because it is difficult to see how a strict Jew could conscientiously 
hold this post, and secondly, because the magicians, probably being 
an hereditary order (see n. 1. to v. 7.), would have resented an outsider 
being set over them. (See Lenormant, Magic, Germ, ed., chapter 6, 

Note 2. The repetition of the words 'thy father' at the end of the 
verse is not necessarily an anacolouthon (Kautsch, Grammatik des 
Biblisch-Aram., p. 163), but simply for emphasis. The great king did 
it himself. The Vulgate has 'et rex N. pater tuus principem majorum 

pater inquam tuus.' (I find that the well known commentator, 

Moses Stuart, sometime Theological Professor at Andover, was also of 
this opinion ; see his 'Daniel,' Boston, 1850, on this verse.) 

Verse 12. Note 1. It does not seem to have been uncommon for 
kings to change the names of their vassals. Compare II Kings, xxiv. 
17, where the name of Mattaniah, the uncle of Jeconiah, is changed 
by Nebuchadnezzar to Zedekiah, and II Kings xxiii. 34, where Necho, 
king of Egypt, changed the name of Eliakim, brother of Jehoahaz, to 
Jehoiakim. Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim, was also called Jeconiah 
(I Chron. iii. 16) and Coniah (Jer. xxii. 24). 

In Assyrian we may compare the case of Tiglath-pileser III. (745- 
727 B. C.), who reigned in Nineveh as Tiglath-pileser, (Tukultipale- 
sarra) and in Babylon under the name Pulu ; i. e. the biblical Pul. 
Shalmaneser the fourth (727-722 B. C-), was called in Babylon Ulula'ii 
(Ilulaios), but in Assyrian Shalmaneser (Sulmanu-asarid). 

Verse 13. Note 1. Reflectively and not necessarily a question with 
the interrogative H dropped to avoid hiatus. (So Kautzsch, op. cit.). 
If the translation given above be adopted, there is certainly no contra- 
diction between this verse and the statement in chapter viii. 27, that 
Daniel had already been in the service of Belshazzar. The king docs 
not say 'art thou Daniel ?' as if he had never before heard the name, 
(Lengerke, Daniel, 254), but remarks reflectively ' so thou art Daniel.' 
The author certainly did not intend to represent in this address any 
latent scorn at Daniel's Jewish origin, according to Calvin's strange 
idea (followed by Havernick, Dan., 194). 

Note 2. The relative pronoun refers to the exiles and not to Daniel 
directly as the Vulgate has it. Theodotion lias correctly />; i/wev. 

Verse 15. Note 1. Simple asyndeton, cf. chapter i. 20; ii. 27.45. 
The Syriac version inserts the copula. Havernick, Dan. 194, and I>er- 
tholdt, Dan. 380, following Theodotion, supposed that the other classes 
of magicians had been omitted. Theodotion has* -<></''" .M</;,<>/, I' 


Verse 17. Note 1. Daniel's refusal to accept the promised reward 
sign of his religious exclusiveness. He is unwilling to take gifts 
for using the power which God has given him. As to his final accept- 
ance of the offer, see note to v. 2!>. 

Xote 2. The author gives the prophet time to examine and read the 
writing during the speech of the king. Compare the LKX.: TOTE 

Arm/// tar-i/ Karhmrri rf/q ypafyi/s K</'/ tin'-, i't,i Kd'i n'r7(.>c aireKpi&Jf^ etc. 

Verse 18. Note 1. '0 Kin-' really 'Thou King 'a nomina- 
tive absolute as in chapter ii. 21). 

Note 2. Notice the contrast BO strongly emphasized in these verses 
18-20, between the great Nebuchadnezzar, and his insignificant sue 
cessor. The point is. that ii' Nebuchadnezzar, the great king, suffered 
such punishment for his pride from tin- Most lliuli. how much more 
then Belshazzar who has deliberately insulted the (lod of the Heavens 
by the profane use of His sacred vessels. 

Verse 21. Note 1- The usual translation is 'wild asses.' Theodo- 
tion has ~' ; "' bvdypuv, translating the Aramaean word X1HJ7. 

It seems preferable however to read here X'")"TJ7 herds, a sir. 

tiou which was advanced by I 'rot', llaiipt in his lectures and which is 
mentioned by ). D. Michadis. l>aniel. p. .">!. as being the reading of an 
old codex. The reading 'wild asses" certainly makes no sense, as no 
mortal man could take up his abode with these swiftest denizens of the 

Note 2. For this legend regarding Nebuchadnezzar see Daniel iv. 
25-34. Kiiscbins gives an account which bears some slight resein 
blance to the Biblical story. Kusebius took his version of the tale 
from the writings of Abyd'-mis \vho mentioned Me-a-thenes as his 
source. The latter was said to have had the account direct from the 
rhahheans. According to this version. Nebuchadnezzar prophesies 
the downfall of Babylon and invoke.- on his enemies the very fate 
which according to the book of Daniel he suffered himself. Compare 
Kusebius. Kvanir. I'raeparatiouis Liber It. 41. (i. ed. < iaisford. and the 
shorter account of the same in the ( 'hroniconini Libri duo, Schone I. 
41, 42, cited Selirader. .Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Tlieologie, vii. 628 

' Wahnsiim Nebuchadnezzar 's.' 

The theory of v. Lengerke. Dan. 151 and Ilit/ig. Dan. 57, seems 
hardly tenable, that the account of Abydenus was a later fabrication, 
taken partly from the prophecies in chapters ii. iv, and partly from 
the story of the lycanthropy. chapter iv. and chapter v. The diame- 
trically opposed character of the two accounts appears to preclude, such 
a supposition. In the IJible the curse falls on Nebuchadnezzar, while 
in the secular version the king invokes it on his enemies. The con- 
nection between the two seems to lie in the fact that in both accounts 
it is a tale about Nebuchadnezzar and a curse. If, as Schrader thought, 
the two accounts are independent developments of one and the same 
Babylonian legend, one version has been sadlv distorted. 


Some have sought to find confirmation for the biblical account in the 
statement of Joseph us, c. AI>. I. 20, that Nebuchadnezzar, kfineauv i/r 
(iwi.MjTiav, departed this life, their idea being, that unless the illness 
had been something peculiarly remarkable, such as the biblical ' in- 
sania zoanthropica,' it would not have been mentioned!?). It appears 
impossible, however, with our present data to make any definite state- 
ment with regard to the historical accuracy of the biblical account of 
Nebuchadnezzar's lycanthropy. 

Verse 23. Note 1. Compare Psalm cxxxv. 16, 17. 'They have 
mouths but they speak not, eyes have they, but they see not. They 
have ears but they hear not, neither is there any breath in their 
mouths.' Also Psalm cxv. 4 ff. 

Note 2.-Cf. Jeremiah x. 23, 13T] D"]^'? N^ 

'Verse 24. Note 1. Theodotion rfm mlro and Vulgate ' idoirco ' are 
not quite exact. It is 'then' not 'therefore.' (Of. the more suitable 
Syriac 'ha- v den.' 

Verse 25. Note 1. The mina alludes to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel, 
one sixtieth as valuable, points to the insignificant Belshazzar, while 
the two half-minas refer to the double nation the Medes and Persians. 
who are to destroy the power of Nebuchadnezzar. See above, chapter 
first, for full discussion. Both the Greek and Latin versions in the 
reproduction of the mysterious sentence in v. 25 read only the three 
words 'mane,' 'thekel,' 'peres,' omitting one JO , and disregarding 
both the conjunction ^ and the plural form of DID This reading 
may have been due to the influence of vs. 26, 27, 28 where only a single 
frOP j and the singular form D""]B aro mentioned with ^pri ? as 
strictly necessary to the interpretation. The Syriac version alone has 
kept the received text, ' mane m c na th'qel w c pharsin.' 

It is interesting to notice that one version of the LXX. in disagree- 
ment in this point with the version of Theodotion, has transferred the 
words to v. 5 (q. v.) and changes their order, reading Mac//, *a/oef, 
It seems possible that the copyist of the original manuscript, from 
which this translation was made, understood the real meaning of the 
words as names of weights and without seeing their special application 
to this passage, felt the necessity of a regularly decreasing enumera- 
tion. (Cf. in this connection Hebraica iii. No. 2, 3(1. note 1. (Ganncau)). 
The LXX., however, translates the three words by jjpi&tJieTai, ^i/p-at, 
rn-dTui; 'numbered, taken away, weighed/ 

Verse 28. Ancient history establishes the closest connection be- 
tween the Medes and Persians. (For the history of the Medes proper 
see above, ch. ii.) The Greeks frequently applied the common term 
Medes indifferently to either nation. Thus, the conflicts with Darius 
and his successors were called either ra AI//A/AU or ru ll.^rr//,,/, while 
the Persian Great King who ruled in Snsa was addressed as tlic ' King 
of the Medes.' (Cf. in connection with this. Kawlinson, rive (Jreal 
Monarchies, 2. 300, note 1. and Delattre, Medcs, p. .">.) The Jews also 


as is well known, regarded the Modes and Persians as two peoples 
closely allied in law and customs. (Cf. Dan. vi. 8. 12. 15; viii. 20; 
Esther i. 3 reference to the power of Persia and Media ; i. 14 Princes 
of Persia and Media (see also i. 18); x. 2 allusion to the book of the 
chronicles of Media and Persia.) Previous to the discovery of the 
cuneiform inscriptions, no one thought of doubting that the Medes as 
well as the Persians belonged to the Aryan race. Herodotus, 7. 62, 
remarked /M///OITO ~a/Mi -put; -ui-ri.n' '\fHoi, and adds that whenMedea of 
Colchis came to them from Athens they changed their name to Medes. 
It is also especially stated by Strain > xv. 2. 8, that both Medes and Per- 
sians used practically the same language, (eiri yap ~(.x; KO.I u^y"KorroL 
-apd fiiKfiuv.} We may compare Bawlinson, 1. c., and also Strabo, xv. 11. 
14, where the same ass. -rtion is ascribed to Ncarkos, one of the officers of 
Alexander. (See for further examples Weisbach, Achameniden In- 
schriften /writer Art., p. 21.) 

Of late year-, however, serious doubt has been cast on the Aryan 
origin of the Medes by a number of scholars. Because in the trilingual 
inscription* of the Achaemeniaii kings, between the original Persian 
and the Babylonian translation, another idiom appears, taking prece- 
dence over the BabyloniaDt certain scholars have believed this to be 
the language of Media. (So Oppert, Medes. p. 2. For a synopsis and 
discus-ion of the various opinions on this subject see Delattre, op. cit., 
pp. 7fF. and p. 1(1.) This dialect of the second sort which was given 
such a prominent place in the royal inscriptions must be, it was thought, 
the idiom of the most important subject people of the Persian Umpire, 
the Babylonian being necessarily excluded. They decided accordingly 
that it could only be the lan-ua-e of the Medes. Then, when an exam- 
ination brought to li-ht that it was neither a Semitic nor an Aryan 
idiom, they concluded that the Medes must have been a -i Turanian " 
people. The principle on which such a supposition rested is, that the 

choice and disposition of language in the A.chaemenian texts depended 
on the relative importance of the peoples who made up the Persian 
Km | ire. 

Although it would certainly be natural that the Persian kings 
should in their trilingual documents give the idiom of the most impor- 
tant subject state the precedence, it still does not necessarily follow 
that the second language in these .inscriptions is that of Media. It 
cannot of course be denied that the Medes enjoyed a special promi- 
nence in the empire. The place which they occupied in the inscrip- 
tions next to the Persians, and the fact that Medes are found in the 
most important and responsible positions seem to point to such a con- 
clusion. (Cf. Herodotus, I. 156-157, Mazares, a Mede, quelled the 
revolt of Sardis against Cyrus. I. 162-176, Harpagus, a Mede, carried 
on the war: cf. also Delattre, op. cit. p. 17, note 3). Part of their 
powerful influence may have been due to the sacerdotal caste of the 
Magi who were probably originally of Median origin. (So Delattre, p. 


17 and p. 55). The very fact that the name Mede survived so long as 
almost a synonym for Persian, certainly seems to show that the indi- 
viduality of the older people was extremely prominent throughout a 
long period of the Persian history. Delattre's remark (op. cit. p. 18) 
that these considerations are somewhat weakened by the statement of 
the Annals 2. 1-4 that Cyrus plundered Ecbatana the Median capital, 
like an enemy's city, has no special force. Because the Medes by 
their superior civilization eventually exercised a strong influence on 
the Persian people, it does not necessarily follow that Cyrus, probably 
the first Persian who came into close contact with Median culture, 
established directly such friendly relations with the conquered people 
as to abstain from plundering their capital, which had fallen to him 
by right of war. 

The influences of this Median culture, however, probably began to 
be felt by the rougher Persians very shortly after their subjugation of 
the Medes. Indeed it seems very evident that those friendly relations 
between the two peoples which lasted with but few interruptions until 
the Median name disappears from history were early founded. 

While the strong influence of the Medes on the destinies of the Per- 
sian empire seems an established fact, the actual province or Media 
was still very probably not the most important in the empire. Media 
alone was not even a distinct province, but according to Herodotus, 3. 
92, with two neighboring countries formed a single satrapy, paying 
annual tribute. 

It is contrary to the consensus of the ancient authors, as shown 
above, to regard the Medes as anything but Aryans and closely allied 
to the Persians. The statement of Strabo that both Medes and Per- 
sians used nearly the same language is confirmed by an examination of 
the extant Median proper names, nearly all of which are of marked 
Aryan character. We may compare Rawlinson, Herodotus 3. 444-455 
(2d ed.) and the remarks of Eduard Meyer on the list of names of the 
Median chiefs of Sargon's time given in Delitzsch, Kossaeans, p. 48. 
See also Literaturblatt fur Orientalische Philologie (Ernst Kuhn), ii. 
p. 51. From the nature of these names Meyer concludes quite rightly 
that the rulers of Media at the end of the eighth century B. C. were of 
Aryan race. (See also Weisbach, op. cit., p. 19.) 

With regard to the opinion that the Medes were made up of two ele- 
ments, " Aryan" and " Turanian," I cannot do better than paraphrase 
as follows the remarks of Weisbach (op. cit., pp. 21 ff.). According to 
him if this theory be accepted, four possibilities present themselves 
with regard to the language of the Medes. 

A. All Medes spoke Aryrfn. 

B. All Medes spoke an Afyan-Turanian mixed language. 

C. All Medes spoke Turanian. 

D. The Aryan Medes spoke Aryan, the "Turanians " spoke " Turan- 


In answer to the first two suppositions, it may be stated, that the 
language of the inscriptions of the second sort is clearly neither Aryan 
nor a mixed idiom, for example, like modern Turkish, while the theory 
that all Medes spoke "Turanian " is made untenable by the statements, 
referred to above, of the ancient authors who evidently regarded the 
Median language as Aryan. The fact, too, that the Medes played such 
an important part in Persian history, and were for such a long time so 
closely and prominently connected with the latter people, could hardly 
have been the case had they been a totally distinct "Turanian'' nice. 
In the latter instance, while considerable influence might have been exer- 
cised by an entirely alien people, such a complete association and iden- 
tification of intcrots as appear between the Medes and Persians could 
hardly have been expected. The tie of a common language must have 
been present to establish such a close union. As to the last idea, that 
part of the Medes spoke Aryan and part ''Turanian, 1 ' even if this were 
so. we would have no right to call the language of the "Turanian' 1 
Modes, "Median," as this term was applied by custom to an Aryan 
speech. To do so, would he start a confusion of names similar to that 
suggested by \Veisbach (p. J). He asserts quite rightly, that to call a 
"Turanian" language ".Median" would be an error like calling the 
language of the < Jermans resident in Bohemia. " Bohemian." a term 
which is only applied to the idiom of the (V.echs : the true Bohemians. 
In addition to this, however, there is no reason for supposing that the 
language of the Aehaeuieniaii inscriptions of the second sort is that 
of -Turanian " Medes at all. 

If, as seem- necessary, the Medes must be regarded as entirely 
Aryans, to what people then are the non-Aryan non-Semitic Achae- 
menian inscriptions of the second sort to be ascribed? Here M. 
Delattre -eeins to have found the key to the solution of the problem. 

He advances the theory that, because according to ( )ppert and Sayce 
the so-called "Median" of the Achaeinenian inscriptions has affinity 
with the FJamitic or Stt-ian language, the people who used the doubt- 
ful idiom of the Persian documents were of Klainitic race. As a num- 
ber of Persian loan-words (see Lenormant Lett res Assyr., t. 1. 18-19, 
Delattre, op. cit. 43) are found in the A.chaemenian dialect, he further 
concluded that the people who spoke it must have been for some; time 
closely connected with Persian influences. The fulfillment of both 
these conditions he timls in the natives of Ansan, the hereditary state 
of ( 1 yrus ; i. e. he believes that the second Achaeinenian language was 
the Elamitic dialect of An-an. a theory which certainly deserves con- 
-Meration, in that the language of Ansan, as the vernacular of the 
nucleus of the Persian empire, might have ranked directly after Persian 
and taken the precedence of Babylonian. (For Ansan and its older 
language see Weisbach, Die Anzanischen Inschriften, 1891). 

A.8 our knowledge of the language of Old Elam, however, does not 
yet permit a translation of the cuneiform inscriptions in that tongue, it 


seems impossible at present to make any definite' statement concerning 
Elamitic dialects. Then, too, the fact that the Achaemenian second lan- 
guage and the Elamitic are quite distinct though evidently allied lan- 
guages heightens the difficulty. In this connection, however, the great 
difference in time between the Achaemenian inscriptions of the second 
sort and the ancient documents of Susiana orElam must not be forgotten. 
Sayce has found that the inscriptions of Old Elam are to be divided 
into two groups the one written in characters closely allied to the 
Old Babylonian, while the second kind, the inscriptions of Mai- Amir 
present a later form which is closely akin to that of the Achaemenian 
records of the second sort. According to Weisbach (Acham. Inschr. 
zweiter Art., p. 24), it is possible to demonstrate by a number of exam- 
ples that this form of the Achaemenian inscriptions, originally derived 
from the Babylonian characters, is a later development from the form 
found on the monuments of Mai-Amir. Weisbach refers in this con- 
nection to the list of characters given by Sayce in the Transactions of 
the Sixth International Oriental Congress. 

All that can be asserted at present seems to be that the three great 
languages of the Persian empire were Persian, the idiom of the second 
sort, and Babylonian. The second language may be a later form of the 
old Elamitic or Susian, containing a number of Aryan loan-words ob- 
tained through long intercourse with Aryan races ; i. e. the Medes and 
Persians. This is practically the opinion of Weisbach (op. cit. 24) who 
calls the doubtful Achaemenian dialect "New Susian" and remarks that 
this idea agrees excellently with the order in which we find the three 
idioms in the documents of the Persian Kings, first, language of 
Persia ; second, that of Susa or Elam, and third, that of Babylonia. 
As soon as it appears evident that the Achaemenian inscriptions of the 
second sort need not necessarily be in the language of the Medes, the 
Aryan race of the latter, in view of the reasons mentioned above, should 
not be called in question. 

In the twenty-eighth verse of the fifth chapter of Daniel the parono- 
masia on ' Persian ' may perhaps indicate that the author was not un- 
aware of the dominant position of that people. The idea advanced by 
v. Lengerke that he used a play of words on Persian, because he could 
not pun on the word Mede, is untenable, because a derivative of the 
stem *]"10 to measure, such as Hip would have answered the pur- 
pose admirably (see Kranichfeld, Daniel, 227). With regard to the 
question of the precedence accorded by the biblical writer to the older 
people, it is interesting to notice that the earlier references use the 
term Medes for both nations. Thus, in Isaiah xiii. 17, in prophesying 
the doom of Babylon it is stated, 'behold 1 will stir up the Medes 
against them,' etc., and in Jeremiah li. 11, referring to the same subject, 
'the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the .Medes.' 
Throughout the entire book of Daniel, wherever both nations are men- 
tioned, the Medes have the first place, while in the book of Kstlter. 


Persia is put before Media, except in chapter x. '1, where an allusion is 
made to the book of the chronicles of Media and Persia, perhaps an 
old record. 

The explanation of the gradual decadence of the Median name seems 
to lie. that as the Medes in the course of time amalgamated and became 
practically identical with their Persian kinsmen, the name Persian 
came to be used in place of Mede. In fact the latter name seems to 
have completely disappeared under the Sassanidae (see Delattre, op. 
cit. :>!). It was perfectly natural that two closely allied peoples speak- 
in. ir practically the same lan;rua.irc and probably intermixing, should 
end by becoming one. and that the name of the dominant race should 

Verse -!>. Note 1. It is not clear from the text of this verse 
whether the author meant to convey that the promised honors were 
really conferred on Daniel or not, nor is the question of sufficient im- 
portance to merit the discussion given to it by some commentators. 
(('('. Havel-nick. Dan. 21)1, V. Lenirerkc. '241. 211"). etc.) It is possible 
to translate, ' P>elsha//ar gave orders and they clothed Daniel, etc.,' 
\vhichwould mean that the reward wa> conferred immediately, <>r, ' Bel- 
sha/ gave rder> to clothe Daniel.' which does not necessarily imply 
that the commands were carried out, but that the death of the king 
may have prevented the fulfillment of the promise. In view of the 
frequent e<>-< irdi nat ion of sentences in cases where the subordinate 
character of one clause is apparent, the latter translation seems prefer- 
able. (See Kauty.sch. ( Iraminatik des Uiblisch-Aramaisehen, $ 102.) 
The idea that the rewards were conferred directly was held by Jerome, 
who remarked: ' non inirum -i 1>. aiidiens tristia solvent praemiiim 
(plod pollicitus est. Ant eiiim l<nin> p.t tenipore eredidit ventura <|uae 
dixerit, aut. duni Dei prophetani liiunirat. sperat Be veiiiam consecutu- 
run.: 'f. also Zockler. Daniel. ll!U 


Verse 1. a) IJelsha/ = Babylonian, IJel-sar-ueiir. ' IJel preserve 
the Kin,-.' Compare among others, Schrader, Die Keilinschriftcn und 
das Alte Testament,' ed. 2, p. -I.' I.' I. and Fried. Delit/sch, in l>acr and 
Delitxsch, Daniel. K/ra and Xeh. praef.. p. x. Similar names are Mar- 
duk-sar-iuMir. Nergal-iar-u^ur, Sin-Sar-u^ur, etc. (for the latter, sec 
Ztschr. f'iir Assyriolode, ii. p. 101). 

I'revious to the discovery of the name in the cuneiform inscriptions, 
most commentators identified it with IJelteslia/xar, an error which dates 
from ancient times, as the (ireek translators of the Old Testament evi- 
dently regarded the two names as the same, representing both by the 
form I'td/Tumtf). 

I. D. Michaelis defended the readinu "IVt^N^D (found Daniel vii. 
1 and viii. 1). llit/ii;- reirarded this form as evidence that the l $# ' 
was an abbreviation of the relative '*1C^K-' Among the Jewish 


authorities Sa'adia derived the name from fc^HJ to search and 
because the king had to search for the vessels in the *)^1K ! 

For various obsolete opinions as to the derivation of the name see 
Havel-nick, p. 172 ; v. Lengerke, p. 242 : Kranichfeld, p. 65, etc., etc. 

The name Sheshbazzar, of the Persian Commissioner, or, according 
to some, of Zerubbabel, found in Ezra i. 8, may be a formation like Bel- 
sar-ucur. A number of variants of the name Sheshbazzar occur in the 
Greek versions, i. e. in the translation of Ezra. 'Zaaaajaaaap, l^/ mnr/^/yr, 
^ l n'a,.-',(/(7(7<i./) J Sova/foffcrappf ; in first Esdras ; ^ivt/.^aanap Za/mvavaaf) . and in 
Josephus 'A^aaaa/). The ending a<rcr/j, common to all, would seem to 
indicate that it is a name ending in -uQur. (In the form Zajlaaufw, 
the -m is clearly the Greek termination). Sheshbazzar may be 
regarded therefore, either as a corruption of Samas-sum-UQur, 'tSanias 
protect the name,' or, as Cheyne has suggested, for Samas-pal-uyur, 
' Samas protect the son ' (see Academy, No. 1031, p. 138, commenting on 
Van Hoonacker's idea that it is for Samas-bil-ucur, l Samas protect the 
Lord 'in Academy, No. 1030, p. 114). 

I am inclined to favor Cheyne's ingenious interpretation, as it would 
not only be perfectly possible for the I of ' pal ' to disappear before the 
following sibilant, but the name would be more in conformity with 
Babylonian usage, than any of the other suggestions. 

b) Drf? "Oy .cf. nnttfO ntPy Eccles. x. 19 ; Gen. xxi. 8. 

c) p}*"O*") : really a double plural; i. c. with reduplication and the 
ending -an. The word is common in the Targums, where it occurs in 
the forms, fcOTOT aWTOn and frOmD . For examples, see 

T T : r ~~ TT:: TT: 

Levy, Chaldaeisches Worterbuch, and cf. Syriac, rawrvane, rawrvaiuiy, 
etc., Noldeke, Syriac Grammar, $ 146. For a list of nouns in Syriac 
forming their plural in -an, see op. cit. 74. As Noldeke remarked 
(Gott. Gel. Anz., 1884, p. 1020), Kautzsch might, in his Grammatik des 
Biblisch-Arani., p. 110 and 114, have stated a little more explicitly that 
the double formations pD""O1 fMO*"O'""') , etc., cannot occur in the 
singular, any more than the simple form 3*) , JO1 can form a plural, 
(with the exception of course, of a few special cases). 

d) ^Dp 1 ? = before, in front of, from ^Dp receive, Arabic J*o* . 
An exactly equivalent expression is the Assyrian ' ina maxru ' ~ before, 
in the presence of, from ' niaxaru,' to be in front of, go to meet ; then, to 
meet as an enemy; hence 'tamxaru,' battle, and 'maxiru,' rival. 'Max 
aru' means also, to hasten; hence l mitxaris,' swiftly. See ])elit/sdi, 
Assyrische Studien, pp. 124-125, for the development of these words. 

Verse 2. a) fcOftfl DJ/COD ' at the command of the wine,' not, 
4 when the wine began to taste ' as is usually translated. See Haver 
nick, Dan. 174; Kranichfeld, Dan. 214; Ilit/ig, Dan. 7!>, etc. Hotli 
K. Salomo and Ibn Ezra understood this passage correctly, translating 
1 at the bidding of the wine,' cf. 1 la\ erniek, Dan. 175. The LXX. has 
'~Evv\l)OV/it'voc ('nrb TOV nlvov. Theodotioil, '"'' ~ (I }!i'r>:/ roi> n'iror. X'ulgate, 
jam temulentns. 


Aram. Dj^lD and Assyrian ' temu ' mean both 'understanding* and 
'command.' For the former meaning for D^CO , see Dun. ii. 3 ; Dlt^' 
D.J7lp 'to consider;' also Dan. iii. 12; iv. 14. For the signification 
'command;' see Ezra iv. S, !), 17. DJ^CD *7J73~' commander ;' also 
Dan. iii. 10, etc. 

Assyrian ' temu ' occurs in the meaning 'understanding,' IR. SamSi- 
raimiian ; IT. IS, where we find anielu tema. 'a man of understanding ;' 

I V 1{. 7)7 : col. III. 33, usanna tenki. T wiH change thy understanding ; 
i. e. ' make thee mad.' and Ash. r. S. (J. teiisii uiannima, 'he smote him 
with insanity.' For this translation and the form ' tensu ' for 'temsu,' 
see llaupt. Wateh-Ben-Hazael, Hebraica, i., pp. 219-220. "temu' means 
'command, demand: IV I!. ."H. n. \.'2 etlu ina temisu "the husband 
with his demand:' 1 H. NJ; col. Ill ."V7. ki to*i ramanisu, 'of his own 

h) \3fcO 1 ? For t n <> Aramaean and later Hebrew use of ^ , to denote 
the Accusative ( Kaiit/.sch.. p. 127). the exactly equivalent usage of 
' ana ' = to. 1'nr. in later Assyrian may he compared. For full references 
see .Be/old. Achaineniileii I iischrifteii. p. 4!>. n. 3. 

c) *7Jlt^ ' ' the legitimate wife." see l'<. xlv. 1(1. used in Xeh. ii. 6, of 

the i|iicen. According to Bar AH (of. I'ayne Smith. Thesaurus, p. 542, 

top. under helathi. Venus) the >tar Veims was called hy the Babylonians 

wadilbat. ^JIC* ^' :ls evidently a synonym, therefore, of belathi, 

heltu. Lady, a name of I star. 

Hesychius also ui\c<the form A'/. ; o" 7 - ' i- < Dilbat), as the Babylonian 
name of Utar- Venus as the mnrning star. (See Lehmann. Samassiimu- 
kin, p. 125 ) Dilhat seem- to mean ' the announcer,' i. e. of morning or 
evening. Sec II 11. 7. .'17. R. h. : dilhat = nabu, 'to tell, announce.' In 

II R. 48. 51, the star Dilbal is mentinned in the same paragraph with 
Sin (the moon) and Sama- (the sun). For the goddess Istar in her 
double capacity of niornin- and evening star, see I )elit/sch-M itrdter. 

Yidite. p. 2!. and tor the name of the place Dilhat cf. Delit/sch, 
Wo lag das Paradies. p. 1 1!>. 

Verse 5. a) Ip^J Vulgate, 'appai-nermit.' The <|'re HpD^ is un- 
necessary, nor is there any need of reading jp&3 f^' 1 "- I'^-i according to 
an old codex. (US. Bertholdt. Daniel. I'.IJS. n. 5). The Semitic 
construction does not require that the verb and suhj(!ct should agree. 
As to the possible survival of a feminine pi. in Hebrew, see .] . I*. I'eters, 
Hebraica. iii.. no. 2. 111. That " and <i were respectively the masculine 
and feminine third person pi. endings of the perfect is quite probable, 
if the existence of a perfect in primitive Semitic be granted. More 
than this it is very difficult to assert. We may compare in this connec- 
tion the remarks of Dr. Cyrus Adler, Hebraica, iii., n. 4, 268. 

b) NJ"W"OJ - "~"- teytftevov. Derivation uncertain. Syriac ncv- 
rasta flame, lantern, from which the Denominative ethnevras. 
illuminate ; Arabic, nibras. The .Jerusalem Oemara translates it by 


using the Greek word. According to Ibn Ezra, 
is the synonym of HI 1^0 i used of the great branching candlestick of 
the Tabernacle. (See T Buxtorf, Lexicon, col. 1290 and Exod. xxv. 31 ff.; 
I Kings vii. 49, etc.) The Targum to Zephaniah i. 12, translates *"0 by 

In this passage of Daniel v. the Syriac version has s e raga. Vulgate. 
contra candelabrum. Theodotion, Karevav-i r?~/r Aa^Tracfo?. Vers. Mass. 

Evtituov TOV /la//7r^/)of, and in the LXX. KartvavTi TOV (j)ur6r. 

All authorities seem agreed that the word is of foreign origin. Cf. 
Bickell, Ephr. Carm. Nisib. 53, where a derivation from the Sanskrit 
ni -|- bhrag, illuminate, is suggested. This is as unsatisfactory as the 
attempt of Bernstein (Lexicon) to derive it from *O3 , shine, and 
Kfi&^'N , fire, or that of Sa'adia from NfitJ^^O" 1 ^ light that shines 
through all the year. See Buxtorf, Lex. col. 1290. 

A Persian derivation (Frankel, Fremdwb'rter, p. 96) is hardly admissi- 
ble, because the original Persian word has yet to be found. (See also 
Guidi, Osservazione, p. 3.) That the Arabic form ' nibras ' belongs to the 
older language is seen from Nab. 27. 21 ; Jakut. iv. 737. 7. No satis- 
factory etymology seems possible at present. 

c) fcOU ' plaster, lime ' ; cf. Buxtorf, Lexicon, col. 425, for the Rab- 
binical definition. TTO'ftn PP^p f'O *VJ1 , species terra deni- 
grantis. The word is probably cognate with Assyrian, qiru, 'pitch, 
mortar.' (Cf. Haupt, Nimrod Epos, 137, 1. 66, (the Deluge) attabak 
ana qiri, 'I poured out for caulking,' or 'pitching.' The ideogram 
which is found in this passage with variant ' ki-i-ri ' is explained in the 
syllabary S b 94. There is probably some connection with the Arabic 

y(3 , pitch, according to the theory of Professor Haupt in Schrader's 

Keilinschriften und das alte Testament, 2 p. 516, in spite of Jensen's 
doubt the meaning of the word (Kosmologie, p. 410). Lagarde connects 
it with Turkish, kil, 'fuller's earth '(?). 

d) ^rO * ' wall ; status emphat. tf^rO >~ see Ezra v. 8. We may 
compare Kautzsch, op. cit. $54 e. and Assyrian ' kutallu ' = ' side.' 
(Senn. VI. 28 ; I R. 44. 55 ; IV R. 52. 20 ; II R. 48. 50). 

c) N"T DD 5 ' tne enc ^ f tne arm 5' ^ e - ^ ie nan d, the fingers and 
knuckles in distinction to the arm. Theod. rorg aaTpay&tovs r/'/c 
Vulgate, articulos manus. Sa'adia on verse 24, nip^yKn D 
OQ may be used of the surface of the hand or foot alike cf. Mishna, 
Tn DD and ^Ifl D5 and Syriac, p'sath roghl, p'sath ide. See 
Syr. I K. xviii. 44 ; and Deut. xxviii. 35. 

Verse 6- a) VTVtj 'his countenance,' Vt 'face,' 'complexion,' 'hue.' 
Theodotion and the Vulgate both tnmslutc by 'figure.' The word is 
not from the Persian, (XoMckc, .Maud. (Jr. XXXI.), but is cognate 
with Assyrian /imil, 'face;' cf. .Jensen, /tsrhr. 1'iir Keilschriftsfor- 
seining, II. 43. 2; /iinnici'ii, IJiisspsalnien, p. 1<S ;md Delil/.sch, Pro- 


legoniena. |>. 15:;. zimu is explained in Assyrian by sak-ki, ' surf ace of 
tlu- head ' ( V It. .'51. 14 c). For the interchange of in and *), cf. Ztschr. 
fur Assyriologie, ii. 273, 207, Hanpt. 

b) *rYO&^ The termination has the force of a dative, as already 
Kranichfeld saw (Daniel, p. 217). Moses Stuart, in his Commentary 
on Daniel, p. 130, probably followed Kranichfeld in this opinion.. It is 
not the use of the suffix to express the pronominal ending and the 
preposition, as Kaut/sch thought, (Aram. fir. 889.2, as in v. 9 TVfoy}, 
nor is it reflexive (Lengerk", Daniel, p. 248). The use of the suffix 
to express the dative relation occurs possibly in Assyrian in such a 
connection as Akkadische mid Sumerische Keilschrifttexte, 80. 18. ina 
isinni saknus. at the feast made for him; probably also op. fit. 80. 14. 
Adar iarru inaru sa abasu ana ruqetim appa usalbiniisii ' Adar the 
king, the son. before whom his father makes them worship far and 
wide.' It is difficult to know if the suffix has a real dative force in 

like, amatum ubakki. I V I!. .'50. 7, ' I made the word come to thee;' 
ina biti a erubsii. Akkad. Sum. Keilschrifttexte, !).'{, 21, 'may it not 
conic into the house to him;' op. cit . Si. 14. lummidsu, ' may I erect 
to him.' etc. 

VerseT. a) Pn&>). Cf. Assyrian ' pagflru ' ' to loo>en. free ;' 1VR. 

:>;. 2:5; I l(. ;>o. 18. Arabic 1*1$ . We find also the expression, Suttu 

pa-aru 'to interpret a dream' in Akkad.. Sum. Keilschriftte.xte. 20."); 
sunata pa^'iru. llaiipt. Nim. Kp.. <>. [[.. etc. \\'e should compare also 
")u*) l^-eles. viii. 1. Tin' Hebrew form rnn) , 'interpretation,' 
must be a loan word from some dialect where the T was lisped as a J"| ; 
cf. Haiipt. IJeiti-a-e /ur A y rinlu'j ic. i. 1S1. n. 2. 
l->) N^I^N- Assyrian, 'argamannu' A;urn. 1. ss ; c. 111. (is. ; the 

darker purple >carlet a- nppu-cd to ' takiltu,' H*?!?]! , the lighter 

purple rel. Couipare in this co ction. Zehiipi'und in the Beitrage, 

i. T)07. on the different s<irt> of purple. 

c) K!D^t3H . var. N^l^tD Jy '' thr same word as the (ireek 
imi'n'ihf/r trt which I'olybius. M.:!l. refer.- afi a dallic ornament: rwm 
fVf77/ ^iirnniir ijii'/'/tm- o ri/r r/x'i ^'//'/<>i> in Vd'^arai. 
Theodotion's translation has here <'> i/<n'><'i/>//r !, ^/imm-r. 

d) 'Ffyft (i" vv. 1C,2!) Xfi^n). The ordinary form of the Ara- 
m;ean numeral is W*?J"1, cf. Daniel ii. :->!). Ilit/ig (Daniel, HI) read 
here *F\*JFl in order to connect, it with KD^H i but the form ^H^ri 
can be an adjectival formation meaning the third, like the Hebrew 
W?W = ' a third part.' Num. xv. C ; Kxek. v. 12. tffi^fi would then 
have to be considered as an abnormal st. emphat. of an absolute 
^Jl^n (Kaut/sch. op. cit, ]. 121). Hevan's idea is that Kri^n may 
be the Aramaic equivalent of the Arabic ' ath-thilth ' = "every third 
day," and that T^n i" this verse may be an error due to a scribe 
who, not understanding J^^fl, read ^*7ll === third (see his Com- 


meritary, p. 102). Such a view seems highly improbable, as it would 
imply the interpretation that the reader of the mysterious writing 
should reign over the kingdom on alternate days with the king him- 
self ! 

Verse 9. a) PtJ^SriC^O Of. Assyrian 'sabasu,' rage; Asurb. c. IV. 
88. c. VI. 108. and the substantive 'sibsu,' Asurn. II. 106. 

Verse 11. a) *])$$ 'There is.' Before suffixes it often occurs in 
the form JVN i see Kautzsch, op. cit. p. 125. It was originally a sub- 
stantive of the stem V fV i cognate with the Hebrew biconsonantal 
noun ?*, a formation like |J, 'son,' Q^', 'name,' and the Assyrian 

'isu' \/t^- The form *j"lN with final * is a secondary development 
from the noun, with the addition of *. *J"1K comes from an original 
' yaty ' 0]!*), the construct state of which, VV , was pronounced *JTVN 
( > ]1N) in Aramaean, initial * becoming as always i. The Syriac form 
'ithya' 'being' TO 6v t is probably a form with a denominal Nisbe, 
as for example in ' s e gusya.' The triradical stem ending in * is 

found in the Assyrian verb 'isu,' to have; \/*B^. In Assyrian 
the original short form 'isu,' mentioned above as corresponding to $* 
and JTN , occurs, for example, Nimrod Epic, 13. 3 ; 5. 37, etc. Similar 
biconsonantal forms are nouns like 'saptu,' lip; 'daltu,' door; 'ilu,' 
God ; ' binu,' son ; ' bintu,' daughter, etc. The negative of Syriac ' ith ' 
is ' la y th ' contracted from ' la + ith.' A simliar contraction is found in 

*" f 
the well known Arabic (j^uu (the only form of this stem preserved in 

Arabic), and in Assyrian ' lasu ' = ' la ' + ' isu.' See Keilinschriftliche 
Bihliothek, I., p. 40, 1. 25, where we find the form 'lassu'). 

Verse 12. a) *"K^'30 and frOt^'D It- is simpler in agreement with 
Bertholdt, Daniel, p. 378, n. 15, and Kautzsch, op. cit., \ 40, rem. 1, to 
read *")tf'p and JO&^'p , infinitives, following the Vulgate; Quia spir- 

itus amplior et interpretatio somnorum et ostensio secretarum et 

solutio ligatorum inventae sunt in eo.' Baer and Delitzsch, however, 
read "Kifep iind N*)^p (Liber Dan. p. 11) as participles, cf. Theodo- 

tion, <->~i- Trr; riKi Tr'/s/nrov kv avrC) KCU <f>p6vjjai i\al cvveaic; kv itrn',) ovynpivuv 
: I'i'-i'Ki, Kdl avayyt\\wv K/><I-<>!</H--V(I. id hvvv owdtanovg. It should be noticed 
tliat if *1^5P be read, this is the sole instance of the Pael of this 
stem in Hihlical Aramaean. (See Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 65, rem. 1). 
The original moaning of the stem Klt^ ', to dwell, is 'to loosen.' 

T : 

We may compare also the Assyrian ' saru ;' see Zimmern, Busspsalmen, 
!>!). In primitive Semitic the meaning must then have arisen, 'to 
caei )Min<lles from the beasts of burden;' i. e. preparatory to en 
cam|)ing I'or the night, so that later the idea 'to dwell,' was devel- 
oped. ((Jf. Arabic J^s* loosen, and xJL^oo and J^iuO = ' place of 
rest.') Derivatives of (lie Assyrian ' s-.trii,' to loosen or begin are 'sur- 


ru,' 'beginning,' I R. Tig. I. 62, 'surraiu,' Asurn. I. 48, and ; tisritu,' 
the seventh month, the beginner of the second half of the year. 

b) Belteshax/ar. The author of Daniel evidently regarded tin- first 
syllable of this word as containing the name of the god ' Bel' (cf. Dan. 
iv. ") ; ^H^K DCO)- It i >s now generally recogni/ed that this name is 
a corruption of the Assyrian ' Balatsit-ucur,' 'protect his life.' (Cf. 
Oppert, Doc. Jur., p. 282 ; Schrader, Die Assyr.-Bab. Keilinschriften 
p. l.")2. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, p. 4*J!> and Kried. 
|)elit/sch. Libei 1 Dan. Praef. pp. i\ \.) While it is true that we would 
rather expect to find D instead of in the biblical form ^V^E'CD^D i 
representing an original x sound; i. e. 'Balat-u ncur, 1 it is possible 
that in Babylonian the form of the name may have been ' Balata- 
sii-ucur' with *. In addition to -hould not be forgotten that 
the name was probably strongly influenced by tin- similar sound- 
ing Belsha/./ar. (See Delit/seli. Assyr. ( i r. (Jerm. ed-, p. 171.) (ieorg 
Hoffmann's reading. Xtschr. fur Ayr.. ii. .")(', ' Balal -ar-iicm 1 ,' Balat 
preserve the king" does not seem admissible, lie sees in ' Balat' the 
name of a god. Saturn, and compares 'Sanballat,' which is clearly a cor- 
ruption of ' Sin uballit.' 'Sin (tin- moon -od) has made him live.' The 
\\n/i'n-h/r of Phot. Bibl. c. '2\'2. quoted by 1 1 ofl'inaii ii. is probably not 
Balat.' The paa-e a> he gives it is as follows : Qoivt* < Kai ^.r/m/ rnr 
II/ 1,111 \}/// h<n \'>n/ nii/ : < >owri. The writer mav havti mis 

taken l',o/.;iV/ /r i'oi- the name of a male divinity. 

Verse 17. a) Tin 1 ?- I''"!' the I nipt-rfcct with ^ prel'ormatix. 
Kaut/sch. op. cit.. p. 7!>. Although a niimberof the<e Imperfect forms 
with H preformative havc> an optative meaning, in some CESCS they 
show simply the force of a regular Imperfect . a< in Daniel ii. 2S, li!. 
Tt cannot be asserted, therefore, that there i- any difference in mean- 
ing between the third pers. m. with * preformative, Or the same form 
with H preformative. 

In Mandaean. as in Syriae. the regular prefix of the third pers. masc. 
of the Imperfect is H. but sometimes/. It is highly probable that the 
// form is secondary, being a development of an original /. (see ITaupt, 
B"itrage i. 17.), which, as is well known, occurs in Assyrian in a preca- 
-ignification. \\'e may comi>are in this connection, Laurie, lle- 
braica. ii.. No. L L^lil ; " Remarks on an Assyrian Precative in Daniel." 

In ^landaean. as in Aramaean, the two prefixes appear to have an 
equal force ; so much so that in the former language the / sometimes 
occui's by mistake for the unchangeable // of the first person. See 
Ndldeke, Mandaisdie (Jrammatik. '4. Kill, ami for examples in Mandaean 
of the Imperfect of the verb {OPT ' to be,' with ^ preformative, see 
op. cit., IDC. 

Imperfect forms with I are also found in the dialect of the Babylo- 
nian Talmud ; see Lu/zato. (Jrammatik des Idioms des Thalmud Babli, 
p. S4. 


Verse 19. a) pjfttt , from V^lf , to tremble. The same stem is 
seen in the Assyrian 'zu,' storm, bird of the storm; see Zimmern, 
Busspsalmen, 94. 

b) \11D1p [D P^fn fearing before him cf. Assyrian, 'Japan 
esriti ---- aplaxma.' I reverenced (before) the shrines, Asurb. c. X. 
78; also IK 11. 14, etc. 

c ) N3: k We may compare Assyrian ' c.ibu,' to wish, I R. Saigon 
Barrel Cylinder, 1. 42, from which the derivative ' tegbitu/ 'a wish;' 
also ' gibutu,' ' desire ;' see Jensen, Ztschr. fur Keilschriftsforschune, 
ii. 26/27. 

d) NHD - Ptc. Haphel of NTT ' to live.' The older .authorities con- 

.. T ~; 

sidered it the participle of KHD i to strike, evidently reading here 

T : 

NHO Thus, Theodotion translated not n'vq rjpoii'teTo av-bq ITVTTTSV, while 
the Vulgate has 'percutiebat.' It is now generally accepted, however, 
that this is the participle of Wtl , to live, as indeed the context 
plainly shows. (Cf. Bertholdt, Daniel, p. 362, 19 ; Havernick, Daniel, 
196 ; v. Lengerke, 257/8 ; Hitzig, Daniel, 83, etc. etc.) For this form 
KfTD of the Haphel Ptc. of fr$*n , we may compare the Syriac Aphel 
'axi,' with the Participle 'maxe.' Such forms are based on the anal- 
ogy of the verbs mediae geminatae. Cf. Nb'ldeke, Syrische Gram- 
matik, $ 183, and the Aphel ' abez ' partc. ' mabez ' from the stem 

is not therefore- to be considered as representing an original 
' as Kautzsch thought (op. cit. p. 29 and see also Nbldeke, Gbtt. 
Gel. Anzeigen, 1884, p. 1018). Such an analogy between fc$*n and the 
stems mediae geminatae found in the Imperfect and in the Aphel of 
the verb in Syriac, is easily understood when it is remembered that the 
primitive form of X*(l is VPl C xayiwa" intransitive) a trace of which 

G ,- ^ ^ 

is still found in the Arabic ^jLjy^ , animal, and in the Aramaic 
KHVn This Vll became naturally **("| which was itself a form yy . 
It is interesting to note here that Syriac Aphel forms like ' abez,' Partc. 
'mabez' of yy verbs are in their turn based on the analogy of verbs 
| . Thus, the Aphel of Syriac 'n'faq' is ' appeq,' Partc. 'mappeq.' 
For analogy in the Semitic languages in general, cf. Huizinga, Disserta- 
tion on "Analogy in the Semitic Languages," Baltimore, 1891. 

\Vrse 21. a) "V*)p? Assyrian 'taradu' ' drive away,' (passim); for 
ex. 'ina zumrisu litrud,' 'from his body may he drive it ;' IV R. 15. 27A. 

1)) ^1^. This reading as a passive is possible and, moreover, is 
indicated as the correct one by the old translators ; Theodotion. fW/i^/. 
Vers. Mass. re#elrai : Viilu;., 'positmn est,' Syriac, 'csCAve.' Sec also 
Lcii,^crk(!, Daniel, p. 25!> ; llity.ig, Daniel, p. SI. Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 
81, however, reads liei'e V1^, a tliird pers. pi. Pa'il, unnecessarily 
(lie ") IVoinllie following word Dj/*V l ; or t lie use <!' this 


verb ^1* with the preposition Q^, ef. Pesh. St. John v. 18, "s'wa 'am." 
and in Hebrew the construction Q^ ^55^3 i n I )>s - xxviii. 1 ; cxliii. 7. 
In Hebrew the construction p Hlii* is also found ; cf. Ps. xviii. 34. 
A precisely equivalent usage is that of the Assyrian 'emu kima r for 
which see note to Cyrus Cyl. 1. 11. 

That 'emu' has the meaning 'be like,' is shown by the comparison 
' emu ' = ' masalu.' V R. 47. 21- Ja. It seems to me rather doubtful if the 
stem ni* Arab, sawa' . Syr. >'wa. is to be considered with /immern 
a common Semitic pusses-ion (Ztschr. fur Assyr., v. 85 ff.). He cites 
the Assyrian form ' MI-U-U ' = ' sum-mu-u,' found V R. 28-87 e. f. 
asthePiel Infinitive of HlC* (Cf. also Bussps., 16. E. A similar 
form to 'sii-u-u' is " qu-u-u' = qum-mu-u also V K 1. c.) Zimmern 
then proceeds to argue that an original 1 may remain in a few verbs H^ 
in Assyrian, contrary to Haupt. Ztsehr. fiir Assyr. ii. 259. 86 and Bei- 
trage, i. 293-300. 

Although the occurrence in Assyrian of the three signs 'pi/ 'me" 
and 'ma,' indifferently used in the form ' n-<a-me," mentioned by Zim- 
mern, certainly does seem t<> indicate a n- pronunciation, I am still by 
no means convinced that the // i> necessarily a radical letter of the stem 
and that consequently ' u-ame (' u-awe ) is to be considered the Inten- 
sive of a stem niu*- :ni<l that ' iiimiml ' = ' su-n-n ' are Infinitives of 
this Intensive. It appears quite possible to regard these forms as 
two variations of the Shaphel Infinitive of the stein HOJ7 = 4 t A| mn,' be 
like, resemble, and to consider the m as a radical. In this case the tr 
pronunciation in the Shaphel Intin. l Su-u-u' must be understood sim- 
ply as a secondary /' development from the original ni. which is seen in 
tin uMial 1'orm of the I nlin . Shaphel. ' ^unimfi.' Furthermore, the stem 

illu*- common to Hebrew. Syria*- and Arabic, may itself be a Shaphel 
1'ormation from the same >ii'in as A\ rian ' siimmn ;' i. e. from 
Amiand's idea that As-yrian 'emiV is to be derived, not from 
but from an original \/Xin ('-) seems to me quite untenable. (Tf. 
Xtsdir. fur A.88yr. ii. 2o.">.) 

c) J7DZD^ from V'^nV which is ]io>sibl\ the same stem as in 
1 cubhu ' 'linger:' i.e. 'the dipping member '(?) We may comi)are 
ian 'eebu." 'to dye.' lonnd in the substantive 'cibutum ' = tinctio, 
immersio. I III. .'JO. (\'l f. There are three words of this form ' (Mbutum ' 
in Assyrian; vi/,., beside- the above; " cibiitu ' = ' desire ' (see above, 
note c. to v. 1!)), and '' cibutu ' = ' a pnu-ious thing.' (Compare for these 
foi'inv .Jensen. Xtschr. fur Keilschril'tslorschung. ii. 26/27. 

Verse 25. a) For exhaustive discussion of this verse see ch. I. of 
this dissertation. pDIlD half-minas, from the stem D"")5 , meaning 
'break' in the sense of dividing into parts. We may compare .Jen- 
miah \vi. 7 and Isaiah Iviii. 7. where it is used of the breaking of bread. 
The original meaning of D^D , therefore, seems to be 'a piece' or 
'portion. It is worthy of notice that only in the word ' half-mina, 


does the meaning ' half belong to this stein, so that in this sense D""]D 
may be a loan-word in Aramaean, (See Hoffmann, Ztschr. fur Assyr. 
ii. p. 47.) 

The form ?*")) with *, discovered by flaimeau on the weights, may 
represent a distinctively Assyrian pronunciation of the word. (See in 
this connection, Noldeke, Ztschr. fur Assyr. i. 418.) 

Concerning the pronunciation of D and & in Assyn.-IJabylonian 
there seems to be a confusion of ideas among scholars. It seems evi- 
dent that the pronunciation of these sibilants in Nineveh was not 
identical with that common in Babylonia, contrary to the idea of 
Delitzsch (Paradies, p. 131) that original $ in both Assyrian and 
Babylonian later became confused with D , just as in Ethiopic. (See 
also his Assyrische Grammatik, p. 108 and cf. Hommel, Jagdin- 
schriften, p. 29. 5 and Semiten, p. 509.) The difference between the 
sibilants seems not to have been a temporal one but rather local. It is 
evident from numerous examples in the inscriptions that $ was pro- 
nounced s in the northern kingdom but s in the southern, while D was 
ty in Assyria, but had its true value in Babylonia. Thus, in the 
Assyrian inscriptions we find EfjWTP in the form 'Ursalimmu' with 
s for *, ' Asdudu ' for IIIJ^X etc., while the Babylonian month names 
Nisanu, Hebr. JDO 5 Kislinm, Hebr. 1*705 ' etc< are sufficient evidence 
that D and ?' had their true value in the south. (For further exam- 
ples and full discussion, see Haupt, J. H. U. Circulars, No. 59, p. 118.) 
The ordinary scriptural spelling of our word D*")D with D is not then 
necessarily to be considered a later usage as Halevy thought, (Recher- 
ches Bibliques, p. 491), probably following the opinion cf Delitzsch 
regarding the temporal difference between D and $. 




95 bela 

100 ma'dis 

83 | r-ihiifn 


82 biltu 

82 maxru . 


gillu 75 
Qalmat qaqqadi.. 75 
gippatu 94 
qalqaltum 81 
qiru V'fl 

83 billtu 

101 maxiru. 



S3 hdtu 

119 maxxutis 

1"3 niatu 

.... 74 

74 Balatsu-uvur.... 
96 bit mummu 
76 gallu 


101 niuinmu 



101 tnandi 


100 garanu 
96 gararu 

76 MAS. MAS... 
7> massu 

.... 96 
.... 96 







74 Gutium 

100 mustaru 

.... 75 



s:i nii(,'ru 

.... 74 



IM - isaru 

99 Dilbat 

ll'.i Maradda. ... 

. . nn 


76 82 

\ } marratu 






.... 83 



,S2 l)urkara-u 
<I4 7 |"i 

. H7 ina-ilaxu 




I'M ma- ilu 

74 125 


.... 76 


94 Zagmuku 
75 y.inui 
HI /aiiiaina .... 

Hf> nia-taku 

loturnu ... 




... 98 

.... us 


nn matitan . .. 

83 Xaniban . . 

S3 mitutftn 
1M in Tit ami 

.... 7ii 

74 x a in in u 

\ ii'-un. 

HI xarine 
', i Xarsagkalama.. 
MI; \u--a\vii 

. Kid nadu 
. nn nadu 


.... 74 


. . . ns 



. si na/.a/ii 
x l napraku 

- 1 1 n 1 1 ml 
SES. GAL... 
tcctti t u 

100, 122 

....'. 96 


'.it, xi-ixtu 

si n a- u 


121 <|( i 1^-1 



'Mi tatapu 

7' SaNallat 


H'.i tnnu 

s:j ki 

111* Sinianu 



.... 74 

S3 kilallan 




117 kilatati 

. 76 sattukku. 

.... -, 

. .. US 
.... 77 






'.Hi kullatan 
9ti kima 

. 76 pixatu 
74 ptikil 

IK ^ \ L 


t am-i lu 



''I iiaiiu 

122 ka^ani 

. 74 DH< 1 ll 

... 7ti 
.... 77 

.... 82 


isdixu . 

76 kisurru.. 

74 pi<ja 


i - x u r 

83 karmis . 

74 paraku 


.... 76 



99 parakku 

83 kissu 

i " I'arsu 


t a nl 





94 ku^taru 




. 83 kutallu 

120 patu 


tardinnu. ... 


7<i kituni 


. 76 labanu appi 
. 76 littaskaru 

.101 putaqu 

. ,s:; ,-ibil 

.... 76 
.... 125 




.101 mcdilu. . 


.. 125 





.111, 118 
XT: 130 

mnn 121 

rr 130 

JW 134 

xnrn 134 


. 134 
. 135 
. 133 



D3 ........ 120 

' 1 D"13....135, 136 

JOV 134 

niDTp 134 

pt:n Us 

hw ii!' 

mzy....i34, 135 





. . 131